New AZ law shields activists from "strategic" litigation

From this article:

Neighborhood activists and others have new protections today against legal harassment. Gov. Janet Napolitano signed legislation Friday that allows them to seek quick dismissal of lawsuits filed against them for exercising their free speech rights.

The measure took effect immediately on her signature.

The most immediate benefit will go to individuals and groups who speak out against new developments and rezonings — and occasionally find themselves hauled into court by corporations with much deeper pockets. This should enable the defendants to limit their legal fees and even get them paid by their legal assailants.

At the heart of the issue are what have become known as SLAPP actions — strategic lawsuits against public participation...

Other industries that engage in such "strategic litigation" will be affected by this, too. This is a positive step forward in preserving the right to free speech.

Update on the Recall - Petitions available

I received the following email from chandleraz.biz, regarding the City Council Recall:

Dear Supporter,

I know this is short notice but due to the large number of requests received asking "when will petitions be available" and "where can I sign"? We will have petitions available for pick or signing at the Chandler BMX bicycle race track, between 3:00PM and 5:00PM today (Sunday, April 30, 2006).

At this time the number of petitions is limited. There will be more locations for petition pickup or signing identified on the web site as they become available.

The Chandler BMX Bike track is located on the Northwest corner of Frye and McQueen roads. The entrance to the track is on McQueen Rd. and since there is a median you will need to be travelling south on McQueen to enter.

We will also be accepting donations at this time.

Thank you for your support.

Regards
The Sepulveada Orlando Recall Committee.

As I've said, I don't agree with this recall effort - I think it is poorly purposed and unnecessarily divisive for our city. I would, indeed, like to see it fail. But in the interest of full disclosure and acting with integrity, I thought I owed it to my readers to let you know I'd received this communiqué and what its contents were.

If you hurry, you can just make it to the event, but I would sincerely urge that my neighbors not support this effort.

City Council Candidate Weninger responds to Precinct 134

This morning I received three emails from Jeff Weninger, candidate for Chandler City Council. In his correspondence, Jeff took exception to some of the comments I'd made on this blog and elsewhere in recent weeks, related to his candidacy. As my readers know, I haven't endorsed Mr. Weninger in this race - not really because of any major negatives, but because I haven't been impressed with the positives. Jeff wanted to respond to some of the concerns I'd expressed and clarify his views.

After receiving his emails, I wrote Jeff a lengthy response. In it, I elaborated on some of my concerns, noted that a couple of his comments didn't actually address views I'd held or espoused, and offered to post our corrspondence on this blog (or to post any other response he would prefer). Jeff replied with a final email today agreeing to my posting our emails, providing a final-polished review of his first email. Our correspondence is below.

Because Jeff's final draft is substantially the same as the first one he sent (only a few typos corrected), I will present it in the place of the first email I received. It presents the material issues mentioned by Jeff in his first three messages. I'll then include my reply and follow with Jeff's last letter to me, today. And beyond this introduction, I'll let the letters speak for themselves.

First, the final draft of Jeff's first letter to me:

Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2006 4:36 PM
Subject: Jeff weninger's response

Geo,

I have been reading your blog regularly. I Find it very informative and well done.
It is obvious that we are on different sides of the political spectrum, but I respect what you have to say. I have decided to respond to a few of your observations.
On the question about when I decided to run for office. I was asked when was the first time that I thought about running for CITY COUNCIL, not office in general. I am not trying to be cute. I do think there is a distinct difference there. I honestly first thought about it in Sept. of last year. It was a severe disadvantage to myself to jump in that late. All of the others had decided 6 months before that and they had locked up police and fire support.
Yes, I am an active Republican, but I would hope you would admire that I have not worn that on my sleeve. It is true that I have numerous Rep. endorsements, but I have no control as to who Chandler residents elect. I am proud of these endorsements. My opponent sent out a mailer that had an elephant on it and she specifically identified herself as a Rep. I have not done this. During the debate I brought up my experience as a PC. I purposely left out the party affiliation.
We will have to agree to disagree on my community service. Is there some inherent bonus to giving free meals away? Yes. Is that why I do it? NO!! I might agree with you, if when I donated 1000 sandwiches ($6,000 retail) and worked the event for MDA , I sent out a press release. But I didn't. I wanted to help out Joe Jackson's family, so I decided to donate $100 for every birdie that Phil Mickelson made at the Phoenix Open. I have never even spoken to his family. I brought it up for the first time the other night. Like I said it is not in my nature to discuss these things, but I feel that I have no choice.
Seriously, when did community service become only serving on a board or commission? Do you really believe someone is effective serving on 20 boards at the same time? I am proud of the fact that my company has spent over $300,000 since the year 2000 on health insurance for employees. Let me tell you, providing health insurance in a industry with very high turnover is rare. It is even rarer for smaller, locally owned companies like mine. This is not something that we have to do. Whenever we have become more successful we have passed on increased benefits to our employees.
I do not think you can discount the amount of jobs that we have provided to Chandler residents ( mostly teens). The restaurant industry is a great training ground for the real world. It is not easy work. It helps develop a much needed work ethic for later in life. I often counsel different employees on everything from abstaining from underage drinking of alcohol to girlfriend troubles. We truly act as a family.
Let me now cover my answer to my qualifications as a candidate for city council. That was my worst answer of the night. I fully intended to say almost exactly what JAKE said, but this is live television. I blew that one, no doubt about it. Just keep in mind that I spoke for a minimum of 30 minutes while rarely using notes. I am not the most polished speaker in the world, but I am honest and have faith in my ideas. I do believe I come off as a genuine and regular guy. I am truly a humble person. If you come into my restaurants you will see me bussing tables and talking to customers and taking suggestions to heart. I will work just as hard as a councilperson and listen just as much. My opinion can be changed occasionally. If someone has a better idea then I will change or tweak my position.
Like I said before, I respect your perspective. I believe that Jake and yourself are providing a great tool for dialogue. There is another blogger that I haven't responded to. I don't plan on doing so at this time. He said some pretty inflammatory things about me. I am a big boy and I can take it, but I am not going to respond to hyperbole. I have had numerous disagreements with Slade Mead over the years, but I believe if you ask him if I have ever been rude or mean spirited he will say no. Disagreement is great, but it can be done in a respectful way.

Thank you,

Jeff Weninger

I responded to Jeff's email today (Sunday) with this reply:

Dear Jeff,

I’d like to thank you for your emails and the depth of response to some of the questions and concerns I’ve raised in my earlier commentary. I think my readers would like to see your comments, as well, and I’d be very happy to post our correspondence on my blog unedited – would that be acceptable to you?

Also, just so we’re clear, though I’ve voiced some rather pointed questions and concerns about your candidacy, I have nothing but respect for you personally. As I’ve noted, that you are a successful entrepreneur is very commendable and your gifts to various people have indeed been generous. I simply raise the logical question of what might be described as “political inurement” from such acts, intentional or unintentional. I appreciate your comments that your motives are sterling, however. As I’ve said on other blogs, I’m sure you and the other candidates are good people.

Also, to clarify, I’ve never suggested that Board service is the epitome of public service. Quite the contrary: while I acknowledge that it is helpful to our community, as I’ve explicitly said (when critiquing Becky Jackson’s resumé) I don’t see a passive, one-meeting-per-month activity really providing a definitive public service. What’s more, when I see someone serving on four or five such boards, but not actively involved in operational, community-level outreach - getting your hands dirty actually working with the people in the community - it strikes me as being a bit imbalanced as a kind of public service. But I tend to think we generally agree on this.

I appreciate your clarification on your views about when you decided to run for City Council. The distinction you make is a fine one, but I believe it’s fair and I accept that. It raises the question, though, of what other political office you may be considering in the future! ;)

For what it’s worth, my own prediction is that you and Trinity Donovan will be elected in November.* Despite the Chamber of Commerce connections, I don’t see Becky Jackson pulling it off, unless something changes between now and then. I’m personally opposed to the Recall effort, but expect that if one or more Councilmen is recalled, then Jackson will likely soon be on the Council as well.

Speaking of the race, I do, indeed, appreciate that you haven’t worn your political affiliation on your sleeve as she has. My concern with Jackson in this regard is that it is clear that, even in a non-partisan race, she seems to be taking every opportunity to play on the Republican voter registration advantage in Chandler. Jackson’s party affiliation is on her website, in her mailers and in her statements. That seems to me to be defeating the very spirit of non-partisanship in the City Council race.

As you may know from my posts, until very recently I was a life-long Republican, myself. I still hold some conservative positions, including a fairly firm fiscal conservatism. I chose to switch to the Democratic party because I believe that the values I hold dear, especially those that derive from my faith in Jesus Christ, are being ill-served by the GOP in the past decade and particularly in the most recent few years. I believe the best progress to be made in promoting what I see to be Christian values in coming years is with the Democrats. In fact, I tend to be a rather pragmatic moderate on most other issues. So I wouldn’t assume that you and I differ radically in all our views, though there are surely some in which we believe the ideology and approach of one party and its candidates are better suited to what our community needs in the coming years.

Regarding your character, I hope nothing I have ever said has in any way suggested I question it. It’s a fine line to draw in politics, but I try to reserve such castigation for people who I believe are clearly over-the-line. There are some such folks in our state - and I do not pull my punches for them - but I have never sensed, nor intended to convey that I think, that you are such a person. I may be ambivalent about endorsing you as a candidate for office, but I have no hesitancy about embracing you as a neighbor and friend. I say this recognizing that we will likely be on opposite sides of the trenches as the campaign season heats up and want it to be explicit that I respect and appreciate your advocacy for what you believe in, even as I may disagree with it at various points.

Thank you again for your letters, Jeff. I look forward to seeing you when I return to my home in Chandler this August. Please let me know if it will be acceptable to post our correspondence and I’ll be happy to do so without modification. Alternately, if you wish to send a statement you’d prefer to be posted in general response, I’m happy to post that instead.

Looking forward to your response.

Your neighbor,

George Gregg
Editor, The Precinct 134 Blog
http://precinct134.blogspot.com

*This May, actually.

Jeff responded to my email this afternoon with the following reply:

Geo,

Thanks for your response. You may post this cleaner version below. Thanks again for the dialogue.

Jeff Weninger

Below this text was the final draft of the initial letter he sent, which I've presented above.

I'm responding to Jeff one more time to let him know I've posted this correspondence and encouraging him to add any thoughts he may wish to the comments, as well.

Thank you very much, again, Jeff, for taking the time to share and clarify your views with the readers of the Precinct 134 blog.

[Update: Because Mr. Weninger has linked to this post from his website, I feel it is important to note that I do not endorse him for City Council. Instead, I am endorsing Donovan and Jackson, for reasons which I elaborate upon, here.]

Permits unpaid, work slows on Chandler hotel

From this article:

Work has virtually stopped at the 10-story luxury hotel under construction south of Chandler Fashion Center, and the city has warned the project architect that some permits issued in January have yet to be paid for.

On Wednesday, the Chandler Planning and Development Department sent an e-mail to architect Brett Oaks of Phoenix-based DMJM Harris reminding him the permits had not been picked up.

...The four-star hotel, southwest of Frye Road and Loop 101, has been approved to be a Renaissance ClubSport, a new luxury brand of Marriott that includes a full-service day spa and a 75,000-square-foot fitness and social club. Plans call for 243 rooms, including 10 executive suites. The top two floors will house 27 condominiums that range in price from $500,000 to $2 million.

The hotel has a projected opening date of November 2007.

The 10-acre site will include a 15-story condominium tower southwest of the hotel and a four-story parking garage with more than 600 spaces. Construction on that tower is expected to begin in late summer.

That tower's first floor will be retail, and the second through fourth floors will be office condominiums. Levels 5 through 15 will contain 102 residential units.

Sounds like it'll be quite a place. I noted in the City Council candidate debate last week that candidates suggested that our neighborhood (around the 101/202 interchange) was ripe for 15-plus story construction. So we probably can expect to see a lot more of these taller buildings going up in Precinct 134 and just to the south in the Price Road corridor.

Superintendent Horne campaigning on public dime, again?

Following on recent questions into a possible election law violation, where Superintendent of Public Instruction Horne may well have been unethically using public funds and his state job to campaign politically, Geoff Esposito notes another possible infraction just this week. Evidently, the mandated AZ Report Card distributed by Horne's office looks much more like a campaign pamphlet than simply a report on the state of public instruction in Arizona.

First of all, Tom Horne's name is plastered ALL OVER IT. His name alone takes up 1/3rd of the front page, not to mention there is a HUGE picture of him plastered just under it. This is not the first time I've witnessed Horne frivolously peppering his name on a TAXPAYER FUNDED document for political purposes, heck, just check out the Department of Education website! It is obviously a political maneuver and it is disgustingly inappropriate.

But most offensive of all is the fact that this whole act of self-gratification on Horne's part ends up costing the state $53,259.52. Now, to be fair, the report is mandated by NCLB, but the fact is that a lot of aspects of the report are frivolous, especially the front cover.

Searching this blog for the keyword "Horne" will turn up ample reasons for his ouster this November.

Add to that the fact that his opponent in the race is a remarkably gifted and experienced man and it seems a slam-dunk to vote for Slade Mead for Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Mitchell and Hayworth campaigns differ on alt-fuels.

On Plugged In, there seems to be a riot of verbiage between the Mitchell and Hayworth campaigns on alternative fuels. As Nowicki sums up:

Our story so far (if we can keep it straight)...

First state Democrats, including congressional candidate Harry Mitchell, criticize incumbent Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz., and other Republicans for $3 gallons of gas and other alleged energy policy lapses.

Then Joe Eule, Hayworth's campaign director, dismissed Mitchell's ideas by noting that Mitchell, while a state senator, voted for the Legislature's disastrous 2000 alternative-fuels legislation, a political scandal of epic proportions that likely will stay part of Arizona lore for years to come.

Then Seth Scott, state Democratic Party spokesman, hit back at Eule.

Now it's Eule's turn again.

You can read the previous posts via links in the thread. A few observations, from my side:

First, as I said in the comment thread, when Eule squeals "a hit dog hollers" as an attempted jab at Scott for responding, I'm not sure if that's meant to be irony or simply hypocrisy. Indeed, Eule himself is either hollerin' like a hit dog, or squealing like a stuck pig. You pick your metaphor, but it's laughable, either way.

Tip to Eule: don't criticize someone for doing something that you, yourself, are in the process of doing. It makes you look...well...you pick your adjective.

Second, is Eule still Hayworth's Chief of Staff? Or has he finally stepped down to take on the role of campaign manager full time? Because it seems about time for him to quit campaigning for J.D. on the public dime. In fact, it's illegal for him to do so. So I'd like to know whether Eule continues to pull a taxpayer-funded salary for his campaign work and, if so, when our oh-so-diligent watchdogs at the Republican party will be sending a letter to the Clean Elections Board to call for an investigation. Just don't hold your breath.

Finally, I know it really rankles Hayworth and his accomplices that people are questioning why Hayworth's wife has received over $100,000 from Hayworth's PAC during his tenure in office. But that's the kind of accountability that really ought to be bread-and-butter in any campaign of integrity and I, for one, am glad that Mitchell and others are raising the question.

The fact that Eule and Hayworth can't seem to bring themselves to explain it is bad enough. But that they take it a step farther and instead try to deflect inquiries about the subject by insulting the folks raising the question seems to show just how little understanding of basic accountability the Hayworth campaign really has.

Tip to J.D.: Your wife (and thus, yourself) have been enriched SIX FIGURES through political donations, Hayworth. It's not "anti-working-woman" to note this and ask for accountability! To suggest that it is actually insults working women who don't get this kind of political largess because their husband is an elected official. Not to mention insulting everyone's intelligence.

The more one hears from Eule and his patron Hayworth, the less one is impressed with their integrity.

Arizona needs better. Arizona needs Harry Mitchell.

City Council gets broad criticism from public

It seems that everyone on the Council came in for criticism at their recent meeting:

Minutes before the council voted unanimously to pick Assistant City Manager Rich Dlugas as the interim manager, members took more than an hour of finger wagging from disgruntled constituents, an in-person outcry that followed a flood of protesting e-mails to city offices.

One, Bette Phillips, announced a recall petition drive against Matt Orlando and Martin Sepulveda. Others criticized Pentz's supporters on the council for fueling the controversy.

"This arrogant, self-righteous attitude has got to stop; it's about time the council worked together as a group," Ron Enderle said.

Michele Daly quoted kindergarten conduct rules and told the council, "The public is more aware of your bad behavior than you realize . . . it's time to stop being disrespectful to each other."

Three former mayors were in the audience and two entered the fray. "You just talk AT each other; you don't talk TO each other," former mayor Coy Payne said. "Why can't City Council members get along?"

Former Mayor Jim Patterson said the group's communication has been poor but recall isn't the answer. He talked about the successful recall of a mayor and four councilmen in 1979, and said removing elected officials from office for their decisions is a bad move. "If you think that's a healing process, you've got to be nuts," he said. "It took us years to put that (1979 recall) behind us."

The Chandler Law Enforcement Association, the city's police union, also weighed in.

President Paul Babeu and Vice President Cassandra Cockings urged the council to move on and stop fighting. Babeu handed over a letter that hinted the council should stop talking about hiring back Pentz after two of his detractors leave office in a few weeks. He had supported the manager's ouster and said he felt threatened by Pentz. "A city manager shouldn't be a lightening [sic] rod," Babeu said outside the meeting.

The oral battering got the council's attention.

"I think we were all taken to the woodshed tonight," Orlando said. (Emphasis added)

Most notable for me in this is that the criticism was not monolithic, but ranged across the whole council. Particularly that there was criticism of Pentz supporters for "fueling the controversy" and an outright condemnation of a recall as being bad for the City.

This continues to confirm in my mind that a recall is not the right course of action and that Mayor Dunn should bear some of the responsibility for poor leadership on the council which has facilitated this factionalizing and breakdown of communication.

Knaperek slams Superintendent Horne and Republican Leadership in Legislature for Tuition Raises!

Well, not in so many words, really. In fact, not at all. While that's the inescapable implication of her comments in a recent letter, Knaperek somehow manages instead only to isolate Governor Napolitano for explicit criticism.

See, State Representative Laura Knaperek (R, LD-17) just sent a letter to ASU Student Body President Cori Widmer, according to a story broken on "Lofty Donkey", criticizing the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) for raising tuition.

What's funny is that Knaperek slyly conflates ABOR's tuition raises with Governor Napolitano because of the Governor's ex officio membership on ABOR.

However, as Tedski notes, Knaperek neglects to say that Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne is ALSO an ex officio member of ABOR. Now, surely the Superintendent of Public Instruction is a fairly relevant role in all of this, wouldn't you think? At least as relevant to ABOR as the Governor.

Tedski also points out that, as stated in Knaperek's own letter, the Legislature is responsible for a full third of funding for state colleges and, if they were to approve more funding, the tuition wouldn't need to be raised to begin with.

So instead of actually addressing the source of the funding crunch, Knaperek blames the people who have to deal with the crunch by raising tuition, and then selectively blames only one of those people, while giving her partisan comrade a pass.

Well, perhaps Knaperek was well intentioned. If so, I'm sure we'll all soon see her letter lamenting Superintendent Horne's failure to serve our state well on ABOR, and ditto the Republican leadership in the Legislature for it's failure to adequately fund the state's universities.

Meanwhile, I figure the heading of this post is at least as accurate as her criticism of Napolitano.

Verkamp to run for Senator?

Spidel has a scoop that says John Verkamp -- a fellow former-Republican-turned-Democrat -- will be running for AZ Senator.

According to the buzz, Verkamp will be competing in the primaries against Pederson for the Dem nomination to run against Kyl in the general.

Spidel also links to some additional background info on Verkamp. The race for Senator is heating up!

Update: Tedski has some more info on Verkamp.

President of Chandler Law Enforcement Association restates stinging rebuke of City Manager Pentz, Agrees to Precinct 134 interview

[Please note updates at bottom of this post. Officer Babeu kindly agrees to a Precinct 134 interview.]

In a comment on The Jake Files today, Paul Babeu, police officer and President of the Chandler Law Enforcement Association (CLEA) voiced again his stinging criticism of outgoing City Manager Mark Pentz.

This renewed rebuke of Pentz's competence - and an alarming allegation of a threat of political reprisal by Pentz - comes in the midst of a recall effort centering around whether there was adequate reason for some on the Council to be dissatisfied with Pentz' performance and interactions with some members of our community. If these allegations are true, it would support Pentz's less-than-stellar job review recently, that led to his "separation" from the City and major division in the community, including a recall effort against two Council members who voted for the separation.

Speaking on behalf of the CLEA Board, Babeu's comment, posted today on this older thread is repeated here in full:

Mayor and Council Members,

The Chandler Law Enforcement Association (CLEA)is
compelled to speak publicly about many Law Enforcement
issues and concerns. Our poor Police response times
compared to neighboring East Valley agencies, where
Chandler’s Priority 1 (highest emergency) is 6 minutes
and 10 seconds, while Tempe is under 5 minutes. We
spoke about the need to immediately hire more Police
Officers, since we do not have enough to realistically
improve our response time and to improve our presence
in Chandler. Additionally, we spoke about Officer
safety - the fact that we continue to be outfitted
with inadequate radio communication, where officers in
critical incidents may not be able to communicate for
help, provide a description of a suspect to other
responding Officers or request medical assistance for
a citizen.

These most important Public Safety concerns
should be the function of our Police Command and the
responsibility of the City Manager. Mr. Mark Pentz
has allowed these concerns to go unresolved and two
years ago directed Chief Kiyler to cut her budget by
2%, underscoring his lack of support for our Police
Department. CLEA felt compelled to speak publicly to
bring public attention and focus to these important
issues.

What was the city managers response to this plea
for help by Chandler Police Officers? He went after
our elected leader and threatened him….Shut up, or
you will not get your raise. CLEA President and
Chandler Police Officer Paul Babeu came before your
body to express his distrust in Mark Pentz and to
publicly report Mr. Pentz’s threat made on February
22, 2006 during a meeting in his office. Mr. Pentz
threatened Officer Babeu, while acting in his capacity
as President of CLEA, to deny a proposed salary
increase for Police Officers. Mr. Pentz said while
pointing to the $3.5 million figure in the budget, “we
do not have to give this to you, I can simply say No,
so be careful what you say publicly and how you refer
to me.”

Where is the City Council’s outcry for justice
here? Was it acceptable, for the highest city
employee of Chandler to threaten our leader, who by
City Charter represents all Chandler Police Officers?
Mr. Pentz’s response should have been focused on
solving the problem and addressing issues which
Officers raised, not a direct attempt to silence the
messenger with a threat. Mr. Pentz should have said,
‘I understand your concern over our slow emergency
response times….what can we do to improve Police
Service, what can we do to get better communication
equipment, how are we lacking compared to our
neighboring cities and how can we better serve
Chandler residents?’ Sadly, however, Mr. Pentz forgot
his purpose as our City Manager and did not provide
one word of appropriate concern for Police Services!
Furthermore, Officer Babeu reported Mr. Pentz’s threat
to Police Chief Sherry Kiyler within the hour of the
occurrence. Chief Kiyler confronted her boss (Mr.
Pentz) about this and Mr. Pentz said he ‘did in fact
mention the raise, but had a different perspective
than Paul.’

At your council meeting, Mr. Pentz admitted that
he made such statements and acknowledged that he was
aware that Officer Babeu perceived his statements as a
direct threat and perceived him to be hostile towards
Officer Babeu, but Mr. Pentz never made any attempt to
dissuade Officer Babeu or CLEA from this perception.
Allow us to share the responsibilities of a city
managers conduct, as written in our City Charter.
Chandler City Charter 2-8.2. “Conduct. In the
discharge of the duties of City Manager, the person
holding such position shall endeavor at all times to
exercise the highest degree of tact, patience and
courtesy in contacts with the public and with all City
Boards, Departments and Employees and shall endeavor
to establish and maintain a harmonious relationship
between all personnel employed in the government of
the City to the end that the highest possible
standards of public service shall be continuously
maintained.”

So, Mayor and Council Members, We ask you again.
Is this acceptable behavior from the City Manager?
Was it acceptable in your view, that Mr. Pentz
threatened Officer Babeu and 240 Police Officers, by
direct verbal threat to withhold our pay raise, if we
continued to speak publicly about Police service to
our citizens. Where is your sense of right and
fairness here? Why do some insist that this man be
considered for re-hire when there is so much baggage
and he has chosen a very public and hostile means to
leave employment?

When Police Officer John Carboun was wrongly
fired by Chief Harris - where was your outcry for his
mistreatment? Chandler has already paid over $200,000
fighting Officer Carboun’s wrongful termination and
civil rights violations suit, yet still not a word has
been spoken by Council Members about the waste of city
finances. Where was the City Council’s outcry for
fairness for Officer Carboun, when he was wrongly
fired for publicly speaking about Officer Safety
concerns? When a Police Officer or any city employee
is terminated - we are simply shown the door, with
little or no public outcry, and certainly without any
generous severance package.

Mark Pentz is fired and it’s like he hit the
Powerball. Truly, Mr. Pentz understands the meaning
of Golden Parachute, when you pay an employee over
$250,000 in salary and benefits, after he is
terminated. Where was the outcry when former Manager
Donna Dreska was separated in the same manner, with
$150,000 in separation package and $50,0000 [sic] for a new search.

Mr. Pentz even said his average rating of
performance by the City Council was acceptable to him.
Will you and our citizens accept average performance
by our Police Officers and Fire Fighters? Do you
believe that is what our citizens - the citizens we
are sworn to serve expect when they dial 911? If our
fellow Police Officers accept mediocrity - it may mean
our very life, or the life of our citizens. This
would compromise the high level of Public Safety we
provide the citizens of Chandler. Our City has
achieved a 98% high approval rating for the past 13
years, due to our great work because we meet every
challenge with enthusiasm and our sincere desire to
best serve our citizens, not some luke warm desire to
be average! We expect and demand leaders who lead!
We and the Police Officers we represent will not
tolerate a Supervisor, City Manager or elected
official who deliberately threatens or intimidates us
in our attempt to speak publicly about law enforcement Issues.

We respectfully ask that our leaders move forward
and select a new manager, a leader who is free of
political agenda and controversy. A new City Manager
who can unite our divided community and City Council.
Our City should be focused on the real issues of build out, economic development, education, Public Safety and the quality of life in Chandler.

The discontent and continued animosity on our City
Council needs to end. We ask that you work together
and move our City forward and address the needs of our
City.

Respectfully Submitted,

CLEA Board

Comment [Posted to The Jake Files] by Paul Babeu — April 28, 2006 @ 7:43 am

Babeu also attended Pentz's public review and voiced similar criticisms in person at that time.

As I say, this would appear to be direct corroboration of some of the criticisms that were expressed about Pentz during his recent televised job review. Thus, it would seem to undermine the arguments made for a recall effort against those folks who voted to separate Pentz based on that dissatisfaction.

Update: The CLEA, representing two-thirds of Chandler's police, endorsed Phill Westerbrooks in his Mayoral candidacy against Boyd Dunn.

Update 2: Responding to my email inquiry, Officer Babeu has kindly agreed to an email interview. Check back at Precinct 134 for our interview to be posted within the next few days.

Update 3: Officer Babeu's first six responses are here.

Chandler links roundup!

Lots of new Chandler links today, including many related to the City Council and its members:

1. "The possibility of rehiring ousted City Manager Mark Pentz was the hot topic at a forum for the three candidates facing off in a runoff election for Chandler City Council.

Trinity Donovan, Becky Jackson and Jeff Weninger answered questions from moderators Wednesday night in front of about 20 people at the downtown branch of the Chandler Public Library.

Weninger, a restaurant owner, was the only one who said directly he would rehire Pentz if elected to the council. Pentz's firing was 'a black eye for the city,' he said." Story here.

2. "A retiree, a drywall inspector and a computer analyst took out recall petitions Thursday against Chandler City Councilmen Matt Orlando and Martin Sepulveda for their roles in pushing City Manager Mark Pentz out of his job.

The three, Bette Phillips, Ray Metcalf and Ray Pilara, said in forms filed with the city clerk that the two misused public funds, abused power, disregarded the general good of Chandler residents and created divisiveness within the council." Story here.

3. "For the second consecutive year, Chandler officials took their proposed budget presentations on the road this week, an effort to make it easier for people to see how the city spends their tax dollars.

Several dozen residents turned out for last year's hearings, but attendance this year has been even weaker." Story here.

4. "City Manager Mark Pentz will say so long to his fellow municipal employees but most likely won’t say goodbye when he clears out his desk this week. Pentz, who signed a separation agreement on April 10 with the City Council after it was apparent he was about to get fired, will step down as the city’s top administrator on Friday. Time and an upcoming election will only tell if he will get a paid break from his job or if he’ll go on permanent vacation.

Pentz sat down for a two-part exclusive with the Chandler Connection to discuss his past, present and future in Chandler. Because Pentz’s separation agreement has a non-disparagement clause, he can only limit his comments to the subject matter of his April 10 review." Story and good interview here (no permalink!)

5. "Civic leaders will hear from a design consultant on Thursday where they should lay the foundation for the next City Hall and a long-awaited museum. Phoenix-based RNL Design, who has been tapped to prepare a site selection for a new City Hall and museum, will review its findings with the Chandler City Council Thursday at its regularly scheduled meeting." Story here (no permalink!).

6. "The Chandler Chamber of Commerce isn’t going to let anyone rain on its parade and is throwing a bash to help get out of the mud. The chamber is hosting the Rainless Ostrich Festival Party on Saturday, April 29 at the Kovach Warehouse, 3195 W. Armstrong Place. The party is scheduled from 7 to 11 p.m.

'The chamber was successful in stopping the drought but unfortunately for us, it had a devastating effect on this year’s Ostrich Festival,' said Becky Jackson, chamber president and chief executive officer. 'So we brainstormed and turned something negative into a positive by throwing a party to help us offset the funds we lost.'" Story here (no permalink!).

7. "Two elected officials who want to roll back taxes have become entangled in a game of political one-upmanship. Mayor Boyd Dunn and Donna Wallace have indicated through city memos they both want tax reductions to combat an explosive increase in assessed valuations, but don’t exactly see eye-to-eye on the matter." Story here (no permalink!).

Tempe Oral History Project: Harry Mitchell interview, 1992

While doing some research on Harry Mitchell, I ran across this very interesting interview with the then Tempe Mayor Mitchell.

Mark Klobas interviewed Harry on July 16, 1992. In this interview, they discuss the development and revitalization of downtown Tempe during the 70s and the 80s.

It's an interesting read for anyone familiar with downtown Tempe (I lived there while attending ASU), as well to see how Harry describes it all.

In some cases, things didn't go like Harry and the City Council planned. But it's obvious that a LOT of planning and active, hard work was poured into the effort to revitalize Tempe over many years with the result being an amazing transformation of that urban center.

Jake "liveblogs" City Council candidates' debate

Jake provides a play-by-play analysis of the Chandler City Council candidates' debate last night.

Good coverage of Q&A and comments.

Donovan comes out of it looking pretty good.

Jackson somewhat bland and canned.

Weninger somewhere in between.

(Also, Jake demonstrates that perhaps he is more prepared to run for elected office than Weninger by offering a polished statement on the candidate's behalf.)

Harry Mitchell web site supporting online donations and volunteering

After a few days of tweaking their website, Harry Mitchell's campaign now supports accepting online credit card donations and volunteer signups. From the main page:

Dear Friends,

For more than 30 years, I've had the privilege of serving the public -- as a teacher, city councilman, mayor and state senator.

During that time, I've operated on one simple principle: we have a duty to do what's right, and put the people first.

I'm running for Congress because we need to put that principle to work in Washington. Special interests and high-paid lobbyists have too much influence in Washington, and I believe we can do better.

Join with me on this campaign for change by volunteering, making a contribution, or signing up for e-mail updates in the column on the right [of his website].

Together, we can do better.

Harry

Today's links roundup

Some key news articles. Please note item #2, referring to the City Council meeting tonight, to appoint a temporary replacement for City Manager Pentz.

1. "Slow traffic and lane restrictions through downtown Chandler will continue a month longer than planned because landscaping crews discovered Qwest Communications' fiber optic lines where they were planting large date palm trees.

Work was supposed to have been finished this week on a $5.7 million project that includes widening and landscaping Arizona Avenue and Chandler Boulevard. Assistant Public Works Director Elizabeth Huning said completion has been pushed back to the end of May." Story here.

2. "Friday is ousted City Manager Mark Pentz's last day on the job, and tonight the City Council will pick his temporary replacement, likely one of his two assistants.

Assistant City Manager Pat McDermott, a 17-year city employee, twice has been tapped as interim city manager, most recently in 2003 when Donna Dreska resigned under fire.

Assistant City Manager Rich Dlugas, a former community services director who was promoted in 2002 and is a 12-year employee, is believed to be gaining support, as well." Story here.

3. "As president of the Dawn neighborhood association in west Chandler, Barry Jerrell struggles to motivate his neighbors to become involved in the community." Story here.

4. "An 18 percent jump in European semiconductor sales and improved product margins contributed to record revenue and net income for Chandler-based Microchip Technology Inc.

The results reflect the improving market for semiconductors and prompted the company to boost its quarterly common stock dividend by 13.2 percent, to 21 cents per share from 19 cents. The dividend is payable May 23 to stockholders of record on May 9." Story here.

5. "School boards often take care of so-called housekeeping at their meetings, but in Kyrene, vacuum cleaners, soap and other custodial equipment were literally on the agenda this week.

Talk at the Kyrene Elementary School District governing board meeting Tuesday night turned to carpet cleaning, bathroom scrubbing, garbage collection and other tasks performed by SSC Service Solutions." Story here.

6. "Between 190 and 795 homes and businesses in Laveen and Estrella hang on where the South Mountain Citizens Advisory Team votes to recommend the Loop 202 be built Thursday night. The Citizens Advisory Team meets from 5:30 to 9 p.m. April 27 at the Gila River Indian Community District 6 Center in Komatke, at 51st Avenue and St. John’s Road."

The team will select a western route for the proposed South Mountain Loop 202 this week, and then take a break. In the fall the team will start looking at possible routes and designs for the eastern leg of the freeway, which currently is planned to go on Pecos Road. The team’s western recommendation for a route will be just that, a recommendation, and can be changed by Arizona Department of Transportation engineers. Story here (no permalink).

A few more government-related links...

...listed via the City of Chandler website:

1. Opinion Poll. On the City of Chandler main page appears an opinion poll asking "The City plans on debuting streaming video of meetings and Chandler Channel 11 programming. Would you watch?" Visit and vote!

2. "May 16 General Voting information:

Registered voters who requested an early ballot for the March Primary election will automatically be mailed a ballot for the May 16 General election.

The last day to request a ballot by mail is May 5. Early voting will begin April 13 and residents may go to the Chandler City Clerk’s office from April 13 to May 12 to vote in person. The City Clerk’s office is located at 55 N. Arizona Place, Suite 203." Article here. Additional election and voter registration here.

3. Budget feedback. "Officials are seeking citizen participation in the review of Chandler’s proposed 2006-07 budget. The meetings will provide residents with an opportunity to discuss budget issues and priorities with the City before final decisions are made. Links to the proposed 2006-07 budget are available below." Meeting is TONIGHT, Wednesday the 26th! Article and budget links here.

Chandler links roundup...

A few more Chandler links today:

1. "Chandler is poised to add 117 employees, build new parks and widen roads without any increases in taxes or fees, according to a preliminary budget released Tuesday.

In one of his last official acts as city manager, Mark Pentz submitted the proposed $850,548,376 budget for 2006-07, a 9.8 percent increase over last year. But he won't be there to see it through to a vote." Story here.

2. "A Chandler-based housing program for domestic violence victims is short on money and apartments.

The Pathways program provides up to two years of subsidized housing for victims of domestic violence and their children. But it has only two apartments and one house available and needs money to rent more, said Yvonne Taylor, director of domestic violence programs for Catholic Charities of Arizona." Story here.

3. "Audrey Stall Ryan and Dr. Rodger Fuller each have been in Chandler for more than 50 years. Throughout their lives, they've contributed to the city's development and have represented Chandler at public events.

Ryan, 78, and Fuller, 83, earned Pioneer of the Year honors Saturday at the 22nd annual Chandler Historical Society Luncheon, at the Crowne Plaza San Marcos Golf Resort's pavilion. The recognition is the top award given at the luncheon, which has become a Chandler tradition." Story here.

4. "Jan McClellan, 57, is a Chandler resident and one of the founders of Citizens Against Covance, a group that is pushing to prevent the global biotech firm from building in the city because it uses animals in drug tests. Her group has held several public protests in downtown Chandler. The most recent was Sunday." Story here.

5. "The Chandler Museum needs volunteers for its Cinco de Mayo celebration. The museum is in the process of training docents to give tours to the public." Story here.

An Illusion of Prosperity.

I remember the first time I learned that debates between Vice Presidential candidates were pointless. It was in 1988 and Lloyd Bentsen was debating Dan Quayle. Anybody that watched that debate would probably have had to say that Bentsen wiped the floor with Quayle. Of course, Bush/Quayle went on to the White House for four years.

Two particular moments I remember from that debate, both zingers from Bentsen. The first was the famous "You're no Jack Kennedy" slam, which resulted in the equally-famous Quayle "deer in the headlights" look.

The second was when Bentsen was referring to the claims made by the Republicans that the economy was doing well. Bentsen exclaimed "If you let me write $200 Billion in hot checks, I'll give you the illusion of prosperity, too."

This was also the first time in my political awareness that I realized that, when the country is plummeting into an abyss of debt, pointing to quarterly or annual economic indicators as evidence of "strength" is excruciatingly misleading. It is the equivalent of pointing to your fine new car and diamond rings and thinking that means you're in great financial shape, when all your credit cards are maxed out and you're STILL spending more than you earn.

People understand the foolishness of this on the personal level. Folks know that if you spend more than you make and go deeper and deeper in debt, the trappings of success mean nothing: you're in serious trouble. Yet, when it comes to the country's economy, somehow similar wisdom is often lacking.

So now we have the Republicans - the folks who like to tout themselves as fiscally conservative - pointing to quarterly and annual economic indicators to suggest the economy is doing well under their mastery. And yet, they are approving record high annual deficit budgets while we're sitting on 8 TRILLION DOLLARS of debt.

And we have Republicans who point to the tax cuts as another example of their fiscal conservatism. Yet this completely neglects the truth, which is that tax cuts leading to greater deficits are actually tax deferrals. Those debts will have to be paid back, via taxes, by ourselves, our children and our grandchildren, perhaps for the next fifty years. And when they're paid back, they'll have to be paid with interest. It's outrageous to crow about a tax "cut" in such a circumstance.

And what's more, much of this debt is held by our major trade competitors, like China, which seriously undermines our country's national security in a number of ways.

Frankly, there really ought to be a law against this kind of gross fiscal irresponsibility, financial negligence and mismanagement of the public trust. At the very least, it's monstrously immoral.

So Lloyd Bentsen's words ring in my ears again: If you let the Republicans borrow hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars more than they can pay back, they'll give you the illusion of prosperity, too.

In an election year where the only thing the Republicans can really point to as a success is the illusion of prosperity, let's just say I'm not deceived.

Frye Elementary going to school uniforms

From this article by Tommy Acosta, posted on Newszap:

Responding to parents’ requests, the Chandler Unified School District Governing Board last week approved school uniforms for Frye Elementary School, 801 E. Frye Road.

The approval makes Frye Elementary School the second K-8 school in CUSD to require uniforms for its students, with San Marcos Elementary School, 451 W. Frye Road, the first to do so.

“It seems to be something a majority of parents want in their schools,” CUSD Public Information Officer Terry Locke said. “A survey at Frye Elementary last year revealed more than 70 percent of parents surveyed wanted school uniforms.”

Dr. Ritz said school uniforms help create a purposeful climate with students and improve safety at schools.

“When you have 250 youngsters at recess and they wear uniforms, it’s easier to see who belongs or doesn’t belong,” Dr. Ritz said.

“Uniforms create a feeling of belonging and unity. Uniforms have a calming influence. It’s not a cure all but it’s another intervention to keep kids closer.”

...Affordability for some students was also considered.

“We are looking for ways to address the financial issue for certain students,” Dr. Ritz said.

He said other principals of schools where uniforms are required have spoken highly of the benefits.

The article notes that Hartford Elementary School, 700 N. Hartford Road, is next in line to be considered for school uniforms.

Another article on the Chandler Recall

Newszap has a new article by Tommy Acosta that appeared in the Chandler Independent:

While the dust settles in the aftermath of the forced resignation of Chandler City Manager Mark Pentz, citizens have launched a campaign to recall two city council members involved in the ouster.

Chandler resident Ray Pilara announced plans to recall Chandler City Council members Martin Sepulveda and Matt Orlando and put the question on the November general election ballot whether the two councilmen, like Mr.Pentz, should stay or go.

“Frankly put, I was (so upset) after seeing how these two council members treated Mark Pentz,” Mr. Pilara said. “What really got me was listening to the diatribe these two men and two lame duck council members launched against him. When I heard them going after Mr. Pentz for no logical reason I smelled a rat. I believe they had a plan to nail Mr. Pentz during his review no matter what. I got ticked when I saw them overtly trying to screw him.”

...“Average just doesn’t cut it,” Councilman Sepulveda said of the city manager’s performance evaluation. “I used a quantifiable tool provided by a consultant that showed his performance as average. The city manager is a very affable man. I believe he’s not good enough for Chandler.”

Councilman Sepulveda said he is not afraid of a recall; contention in the council is not new to him.

“This is not my first rodeo,” Councilman Sepulveda said. “I spoke out as a council member against the round up in 1997 against a very popular council and mayor. I got threatened then as well. If I did what I did that’s my decision. If people are unhappy with my decision and want to recall me — that’s their prerogative.”

As Jake notes, it appears that Mayor Dunn's comments serve to lobby against candidate Becky Jackson. However, it's a good bet that, should the recall be successful, all three of the current runoff candidates would likely end up on the Council before year's end. Two by election in May and the third by special election (barring outright appointment) following November's recall.

Ray Pilara's responses to my emails were posted on this blog a few days ago. I'm hoping to speak with Councilman Orlando in the next few days.

Hayworth's integrity slipping further

I've referred to this before, but it does appear that J.D. Hayworth is using his congressional staff to campaign for him. That's a big no-no. Congressional staff are paid for by taxpayers' money. If an incumbent wants to campaign - dig and dish dirt at his opposing candidates, make campaign speeches, send campaign emails, etc. - he has to use staff paid for by his campaign funds.

That's the law, as well as being the mark of a man of integrity.

Mister T. at Wactivist draws attention to Tedski's post breaking the story on Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion about a Hayworth staffer who appears to be breaking the law.

A photo shows someone who appears to be Todd Sommers, a legislative assistant to Rep. J. D. Hayworth, hanging out at Mitchell's recent campaign launch. Note that this launch was on a Wednesday morning, during business hours. Tedski says that others have reportedly seen Todd at Tempe City Hall doing research on Mitchell's tenure as Mayor of Tempe, too.

Thus, evidence of what appears to be corruption by a Hayworth campaigner...er...congressional staffer. It looks like Hayworth's idea of campaigning is so dirty that it may even break the law.

J.D. Hayworth, looks like you boys got some 'splainin' to do!

A retraction and an apology to Councilman Sepulveda.

In reading the Municipal Code today while conducting research on the recall elections, the part about filling vacancies really leaped out at me with regard to Councilman Sepulveda's situation last year.

Reading Section 2.06, paragraph d, again:

(d) Temporary Vacancies; Active Duty Military. In the event a councilmember, including the office of mayor, receives military orders for active duty and the period of active duty is projected to last at least four (4) months but less than the remainder of the councilmember's term, the councilmember's office may be temporarily vacated as set forth below. If a councilmember is unable to attend meetings either personally or telephonically, the council by a majority vote of its remaining members may appoint a qualified person to serve until the councilmember returns from active duty or until the councilmember's term expires, whichever occurs first.
(Added 9-12-00)

Key points here: Sepulveda was recalled to active duty for more than four months, but he maintained telephonic attendance of the Council meetings. And the Council never, by majority vote of its remaining members, chose to appoint a temporary replacement pending his return.

Hence, by law and by the Council's own agreement, Councilman Sepulveda was perfectly within his rights to continue to serve the council while recalled to active duty and to continue to receive his paycheck for doing so. It was a clear mistake by City Manager Pentz (and City Attorney Michael House who ostensibly advised him) to discontinue Sepulveda's council salary.

Now, I had suggested in an earlier comment that I thought it was inappropriate for a Councilman called to active duty for several months to expect to be allowed to remain on the Council and suggested that his "phoning it in" was unacceptable. However, after my research, I realize that my earlier comments were flat wrong and I hereby retract them.

Furthermore, Councilman Sepulveda, I apologize to you for those comments. I'd like to thank you sincerely for your continued efforts to serve our City, as endorsed by the law and by our City Council, even while on active duty in Iraq.

What the Chandler Municipal Code says about Recalls

Sparked by the Amazing Jake's recent question asking how recalls happen in Chandler, I went to the Chandler Municipal Code to find out.

This post detailing my legal research is rather long, so I'll put it under different headings for clarity:

I. Starting a Recall.
II. Completing the Petitions.
III. Timing of Recall.
IV. Filling the Vacancy.

And please note that I'm not a lawyer. Though I do have a genuine interest in law and governance, my research can't be considered definitive.

With that in mind (and at the risk of facilitating recalls in the future), here's Geo's amateur tutorial on recall elections in Chandler...

-----

I. Starting a Recall.

Looking at the mechanism of how a recall is launched, in Article 8 of the City Charter (located at the front of the Municipal Code), it says:

ARTICLE VIII. INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM AND RECALL

Section 8.01. General authority.
There is hereby reserved to the electors of the city the powers of the initiative, the referendum and the recall of elective officers. The provisions of the constitution and laws of this state, as the same now exist or hereafter may be amended, governing the initiative and referendum and the recall of elective officers, shall apply to the use thereof in the city so far as such provisions are not in conflict with the provisions of the charter.

Section 8.02. Commencement of proceedings, petitioners' committee, affidavit.
Any five qualified voters may commence initiative or referendum proceedings by filing with the city clerk an affidavit stating they will constitute the petitioners' committee and be responsible for circulating the petition and filing it in proper form, stating their names and addresses and specifying the address to which all notices to the committee are to be sent, and setting out in full the proposed initiative ordinance or citing the ordinance sought to be reconsidered. Promptly after the affidavit of the petitioners' committee is filed, the city clerk shall issue the appropriate petition blanks to the petitioners' committee.

Okay, that tells us how citizens can start a recall petitioners' committee and receive the petition blanks.


II. Completing the Petitions.

In section 4-3 of the Municipal Code, we have this text:

4-3. Number of signatures required on initiative petitions.
The provisions of the constitution and general laws of the State, as the same now exist or hereafter be amended, governing the initiative shall apply in the City; however, the total number of registered voters qualified to vote at the last preceding general municipal election shall be the basis on which the number of electors of the City required to file an initiative petition shall be computed.
(Ord. No. 2040, § I, 12-15-88; Ord. No. 2995, § 3, 6-24-99)

This doesn't give the exact number of petitions required to get a recall initiative on the ballot, but it does indicate that it's based on a percentage of registered Chandler voters qualified to vote in the last election. As has been noted earlier on this blog:

"According to City Clerk Marla Paddock, it would take 3,501 valid signatures for a councilmember to be recalled."

Meeting this petition goal then takes us to the timing of an actual recall election.


III. Timing of Recall.

Regarding the timing, there's a section of Chapter 4, section 4, related to voter initiatives:

4-4. Initiative and referendum elections.
The City Council may by majority vote call a special election to vote on any matter referred for a vote of the citizens of Chandler in accordance with the laws of the State of Arizona and the City of Chandler Charter. If a special election is not called by the City Council, the referred matter if properly qualified shall be submitted to the voters at the next ensuing municipal election.
(Ord. No. 3576, § 1, 6-24-04)

Hence, if the majority of the City Council agrees, there could be a special election held to effect the recall.

Technically, I believe the May 16th runoff election would be the "next ensuing municipal election", but for the fact that petitions surely won't be completed until after that. That being the case, it makes the November elections the next opportune moment. Though there won't be municipal elections in November, it would be the best time for the City Council to set this up for minimal disruption and cost. Indeed, this is what Ray Pilara's recall effort is shooting for.

So much for the timing, now what happens if the recall election actually unseats one or more Council members?


IV. Filling the Vacancy.

Regarding filling vacancies left by a recall, the Charter has "Article II. City Council", which outlines the various parameters for the Mayor and Council members (terms of office, responsibilities, and so forth). Article II includes "Sec. 2.06. Vacancies; forfeiture of office; filling of vacancies." This section is instructive for filling vacancies of all kinds, including those arising from a recall, so I'll copy the text here:

Section 2.06. Vacancies; forfeiture of office; filling of vacancies.

(a) Vacancies. The office of mayor or councilman shall become vacant upon his death, resignation, forfeiture of office, or removal from office in any manner authorized by law.

(b) Forfeiture of office. The mayor or a councilman shall forfeit his office if he:

(1) Lacks at any time during his term of office any qualification for the office prescribed by this charter or by law;
(2) Violates any express prohibition of this charter;
(3) Is convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude; or
(4) Fails to attend three consecutive regular meetings of the council without being excused by the council.

(c) Filling of vacancies. In the event of a vacancy in the council including the office of mayor, the council by a majority vote of its remaining members, shall appoint a qualified person to serve for the unexpired term. If the council fails to make such an appointment within thirty (30) days following the occurrence of the vacancy, the council shall call a special election to fill the vacancy. Such election shall be held not later than one hundred twenty (120) days following the occurrence of the vacancy, and shall otherwise be governed by the provisions of Article VII hereof. The person elected to such office at the special election shall hold office for the entire unexpired term.
(Amendment of 12-12-72)

(d) Temporary Vacancies; Active Duty Military. In the event a councilmember, including the office of mayor, receives military orders for active duty and the period of active duty is projected to last at least four (4) months but less than the remainder of the councilmember's term, the councilmember's office may be temporarily vacated as set forth below. If a councilmember is unable to attend meetings either personally or telephonically, the council by a majority vote of its remaining members may appoint a qualified person to serve until the councilmember returns from active duty or until the councilmember's term expires, whichever occurs first.
(Added 9-12-00)

(e) Temporary Vacancies; Injury or Illness. In the event a councilmember, including the office of mayor, incurs an injury or illness which the councilmember projects will preclude the councilmember from attending council meetings, either personally or telephonically, for at least a four (4) month period but less than the remainder of the councilmember's term, the councilmember's office may be temporarily vacated as set forth below. If a councilmember temporarily vacates their office due to injury or illness, the council by a majority vote of its remaining members can appoint a qualified person to serve until the councilmember is able to attend meetings or until the councilmember's term expires, whichever occurs first.
(Added 9-12-00)

Quite a few interesting things of note in this section.

First, if a recall occurs and unseats a Councilmember, there is then a formal "vacancy" per Paragraph "a" ("removal from office in any manner authorized by law"). Paragraph "c" then describes how this vacancy is handled. Essentially, the Council has 30 days to appoint someone to serve out the rest of the term (possibly up to 4 years if it's a Councilmember, 2 years if it's the Mayor). If they are unable to so appoint a replacement within 30 days, the Council must then, within 120 days, hold a special election for a replacement.

Now, this seems to be saying that if a recall takes place in November, then the remainder of the council will be able to simply appoint a replacement or replacements and those replacements would remain in office for the remainder of the unexpired term. This would be two years, as both Sepulveda and Orlando's terms expire in 2008. It would be entirely at the discretion of the remainder of the council as to whether they wished to allow a special election to find replacements (or by their inability to agree, were forced to do so).

I have to say, this sounds worrisome to me. It means that if the recall succeeds, then there are only two unfortunate possibilities: either the rest council will simply appoint one or two Councilmembers for two more years (undemocratic) or we have to hold a special election within a few months after the recall election to choose the temporary replacements (costly and disruptive).

There you have it. Comments and corrections would be appreciated!

Update: Ray Pilara has responded to Jake's inquiry about this (see Jake's entry for the full scoop). Ray has another view on how this will work in November. He says:

The answer to your question is found in the Constitution of the State of Arizona, Article VIII, Section 4: Special election; candidates; results; qualification of successor.

Section 4. Unless the incumbent otherwise requests, in writing, the incumbent's name shall be placed as a candidate on the official ballot without nomination. Other candidates for the office may be nomincated to be voted for at said election. The candidate who receives the highest nunber of votes shall be declared elected for the remainder of the term. Unless the incumbent receives the highest number of votes, the incumbent shall be deemed to be removed from office, upon qualification of the successor. In the event that the successor shall not qualify within five days after the result of said election shall have been declared, the said office shall be vacant, and may be filled as provided by law.

My [Pilara's] interpretation of the above is:
1. Orlando and Sepulveda will be placed on the ballot unless one or both choose not to run.
2. At least 2 people will need to run against them.
3. The 2 candidates with the highest number of votes for the office will fill the remainder of their terms.
4. If they are not in the top 2, they are deemed to be removed from office. 5. If the 2 highest vote getters are not "qualified" and one or both are not Orlando or Sepulveda, that office is deemed vacant, and another process will be used to fill the vacancy. (This could be interesting in that the council could not fill Sepulveda's seat during his abscence.)

I'm grateful to Jake and Ray for these insights. It's not clear to me whether this applies to a municipal recall election in Chandler, but it's possible. It'd be great to have an elections law specialist to weigh in on this.

Update 2: Checking out Article 8 of the AZ Constitution is helpful here. From Article 8 Part 1 Section 1, it appears that Chandler municipal officers are also subject to these recall provisions. From that same section, it tells that the requisite number of petitioners is equal to 25% of the electors in the previous election.

However, Article 8 Part 1 Section 2 notes "If such officer shall offer his resignation it shall be accepted, and the vacancy shall be filled as may be provided by law." It makes me wonder whether the provisions set forth in the Chandler Municipal Code, as I've documented above, on filling vacancies may constitute the "as may be provided by law". Article 8 Part 1 Section 6 also speaks to the controlling nature of general election laws and implementary legislation, of which the Chandler Municipal Code seems to be a part.

I'm guessing Ray has had some knowledgeable folks advising him on the mechanics of a recall, so I'm inclined to lean toward his interpretation, here, until I hear anything to the contrary.

Update 3: Well, the answer's staring me in the face. In the Charter of the Candler Municipal Code, ARTICLE VIII. INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM AND RECALL: Section 8.01. General authority, as I copied above, it says explicitly:

The provisions of the constitution and laws of this state, as the same now exist or hereafter may be amended, governing the initiative and referendum and the recall of elective officers, shall apply to the use thereof in the city so far as such provisions are not in conflict with the provisions of the charter.(Emphasis added.)

So, it appears that both Ray Pilara and I are correct, and that a meshing of these two (the State Constitution and the Chandler Municipal Code) will govern the mechanics, timing and effects of a potential recall election. Strangely, that emphasized passage from the Chandler Code makes it appear that the Chandler City Charter takes precedence over the State Constitution, however. Hmm...

Councilman Matt Orlando's comments to come.

I just received an email from Councilman Matt Orlando responding to my request to speak with him.

Councilman Orlando has happily agreed to a phone call, and will also comment via email to a couple of specific questions/concerns I raised in my correspondence with him.

So, I'll keep folks posted here on his response and our subsequent phone call.

---

Just a note here about how I'm approaching this.

First, I have no axe to grind against Councilman Orlando.

As I've made clear, I reserve judgment about whether the Pentz matter was justified, though I do feel it wasn't handled well. As to that, I think Pentz himself contributed to the problem, by demanding a public review. And Mayor Dunn may have inflamed matters further by having it televised. There may well have been reasons for having a public, televised job review, but this may also have been an escalation of tensions which, handled with better, wiser leadership from the Mayor, might have led to the situation being defused.

And as I've said before, I tend to be very conservative when it comes to recalls, and am not sold on the need for one in this case.

Regarding our upcoming phone call, I won't be recording it. I have no presumptions as a "journalist" in the formal sense. But, with God's help, I am trying to uncover the truth as best as possible, and to share honestly with you folks what I learn. I'm not going to be trying to slavishly quote Mr. Orlando, nor will I try to "catch him out" (that seems to me to be the basest form of reporting, anyway).

Rather, I will allow him to craft his thoughts into a response so as to convey what he wants to say in the way he wants to say it. In this way, I hope to do my best to report what he wants people to know. I will be asking him some pointed questions, too, and hope that his responses to those will be illuminating.

I'm looking forward to speaking with him and sharing what I learn from the experience.

Three Chandler/Ahwatukee links...

Three more links, today (unfortunately, problems with the server prevented me from posting them yesterday):

1. "East Valley municipalities appealing population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau that they allege are flawed are not likely to get the financial windfall they seek next budget year, even if the survey numbers are proven wrong." Story here.

2. "Pictures of monkeys in viselike mechanisms and “Say NO to Covance” signs lined downtown Chandler on Sunday afternoon as about 100 animal rights activists protested the drug-testing company setting up shop in the city." Story here.

3. "Monday night’s meeting of the Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee includes a non-binding up or down vote on the proposed South Mountain Loop 202. But some members of the committee want to hold off until the design of the freeway is unveiled before saying yay or nay. Others have opposed the freeway on Pecos Road in the past and continue to oppose the freeway on Pecos Road today." Story here (no permalink, sadly).

Kolbe suggests Kyl's immigration proposal needs "dose of realism"

Retiring Rep. Jim Kolbe (AZ-8) comments on Kyl's "deport 'em all" approach. Kyl, evidently, needs a "dose of realism".

From my own comment on that thread:

Let me get this straight:

1. Kolbe says Kyl's approach needs a "dose of realism".

2. McCain says Kyl's approach "borders on fantasy".

3. Bush just came out today and called [Kyl's approach] "impractical".

4. In [Republican columnist Robert] Robb's column, where he's obviously doing his best to stick it to Pederson, he nevertheless concedes that Pederson's is the "wiser path" and "the more popular one".

And when Robb says that "Pederson derides as unworkable Kyl's proposal", Robb goes on to concede "perhaps so...".

Look, when even top elected Republicans and their key supporters in the media are agreeing with Pederson's approach, that, folks, is as definitive a statement as you will ever get in politics.

Pederson is right on this issue, Kyl is wrong, and even Kyl's staunchest partisan supporters are forced by common sense to admit it.

[Arizonans] that really want a real solution that will help our state, and not more of the same old B.S., need to elect someone who will bring realistic, constructive ideas to office.

Pederson. He's the constructive one.

Anti-immigrant activists keeping strange bedfellows

I missed this when it hit on the 19th. George Diaz, Jr. posts an entry in Plugged In that calls into question just where lies the patriotism of the border-patrolling Minutemen and their allies:

Today the Southern Poverty Law Center reports that the same Laine Lawless who leads the anti immigrant Border Guardians and also burned a Mexican flag in in front of the Mexican Consulate in Tucson on April 10 has strong ties to a national neo-Nazi group called the National Socialist Movement.

Lawless, a former member of the Minutemen, used neo-Nazi bulletin boards to suggest 11 ways to harass and terrorize undocumented immigrants, including robbery and "beating up illegals" as they leave their workplace.

The report goes on to say, "Lawless, the former high priestess of Sisterhood of the Moon, a lesbian pagan organization, has been heavily involved in anti-immigration extremism since 2004, when she joined Simcox’s Civil Homeland Defense outfit, as it was then called. That same year, she invited "militiamen" nationwide to "crawl through the woods in a ghille [sic] suit with sniper rifle" on her private ranch in Cochise County, Ariz. "I coordinate with Chris [Simcox], so anyone who wants to come is welcome," she wrote in a post to an online user group, "A Well Regulated Militia.""

As if that is not troubling enough, Lawless also emailed the National Socialist Movement the following, "There are several tactics, some legal and some not-so," she wrote. "Sabotage the things they like: entertainment, food, beer... . BRAVO to the person who cut down the Spanish language radio station towers just North of Phoenix! Now that sends a message!"

Diaz' post has the links, too. This isn't specifically Chandler news, but it seemed to be important enough to note. These are some of the folks that are the most vocal about "getting tough" on immigration...I'd just observe that they're not the kind of people I'd ever be inclined to invite into my home.

Harry Mitchell Petition Events - Apr 29th.

According to Harry Mitchell's website, on the big canvassing day of April 29th, Mitchell's campaign will be staging two petition drive events:

1. Eldorado Park
2311 N. Miller Rd
Scottsdale, AZ 85257
(Legislative district 17)
9 am

2. Chaparral Park 5401 N. Hayden Rd.
Scottsdale, AZ 85250
(Legislative district 8)
10 am

You can r.s.v.p. here.

Two recent articles on the City Council / Pentz affair.

From last week (18th), Newszap's article on the City Council / Pentz matter.

From Sunday (23rd), East Valley Trib has this article on the affair.

Both feature comments from the three runoff candidates.

Hayworth "campaign manager" responds to Plugged In

JD Hayworth's chief of staff John Eule fires back at Plugged In for reporting on Coburn's possible indictment comment.

But when he takes a swipe at Harry Mitchell, John Eule sounds an awful lot like a campaign manager, no?

[Update: In attempting to defend his boss, Eule claimed that the Washington Times story referenced that called Hayworth into question "was refuted the very next day by a story in the Las Vegas Review-Journal". In fact, as one Plugged In reader noticed, the story in the LVRJ does not refute the WashTimes story. Try again, Eule!]

AZ wines, the Supreme Court and Rep. Bob Robson

A Supreme Court's decision last year (Granholm v. Heald) effectively overturned laws (such as Arizona's 1982 statute) which prevent wineries from shipping directly to consumers via the internet if they allow such sales directly, in-state.

Now, the AZ State legislature is struggling to figure out how to handle the implications, with wineries wanting to ship directly to consumers and wholesalers wanting to require them to ship through, well, wholesalers.

Key issues involved include freedom of commerce and concerns about sales to minors. This article outlines the fermenting debate. One bill, SB 1276, is an attempt to reconcile the issues. It's directly relevant to our neighborhood because of District 20's Rep. Bob Robson's involvement:

"I want both sides to come up with a compromise before I let it out of my committee," said Rep. Bob Robson, R-Chandler, House Rules chairman. "There are merits to both sides of the issue."

On a humorous side note, hometown heroine Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is involved in ways other than her role in the Supreme Court decision.

Mitchell and Hayworth. Like Day and Night.

Two links for you as Sunday draws to a close (great time at church and a nice brthday party, too). They're a little old, but I missed them when they came out:

1. From April 17th: Robert Robb tallies up the daunting electoral math for Harry Mitchell in AZ-5. It's an uphill climb for Mitchell, but given (a) the growing discontent with the Republican incompetence and corruption generally, (b) the specific nightmare fatigue with J.G. Hayworth and (c) the demonstrably high quality of Mitchell, it may finally be time we can elect a competent representative to AZ-5.

2. From April 5th: Linda Valdez notes that Hayworth's bizarro ELL legislation would be great applied to all kinds of pesky situations. Great, that is, if it weren't right out of fantasyland. Presented at the behest of Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne, Hayworth's inane bill simply declares Arizona to be in compliance with Federal law. As Valdez notes, maybe we could legislate away our traffic problems, too.

Imagine, legislating away reality. Does life really work that way for J.D. and Horne? It doesn't for me.

Intel, Bashas' big in Chandler

From this article:

Two of Arizona's 10 largest employers are based in Chandler, according to an annual Arizona Republic survey.

Intel Corp., with 10,900 employees in Chandler, ranks fifth on the Republic's Top 100 employers list, up four spots from ninth place last year.

Bashas' Inc. supermarket chain ranks seventh, with 9,966 workers across the state. Bashas' dropped four spots from third place a year ago.

As the article notes, both of these businesses are having a significant impact on our neighborhood in employment, community involvement, house prices, etc.

Sorry, no other links today: I'm enjoying the Sunday at church and celebrating my 39th birthday today!

Discussion forum for run-off Council candidates

Having no permalinks is bad enough, but then when your articles evaporate like the morning dew, it's just outrageous.

Nevertheless, Chandler Connection has an article (get it while it's there!) on an upcoming Council candidate debate forum:

Connection hosts forum for run-off candidates

Chandler residents will get a one-time shot to know what’s on the minds and agendas of three political hopefuls looking to nab a seat on the City Council. The Chandler Connection will host a public forum for run-off candidates Trinity Donovan, Becky Jackson and Jeff Weninger. The three will be vying for two open seats on the council in the May 16 general election.

The forum will take place 7 p.m. Wednesday, April 26 at the Downtown Chandler Library, 22 S. Delaware St., in the City Council Chambers, second floor.

...[Brian Johnson, editor of the Connection] said candidates would have an opportunity to introduce themselves and make concluding comments at the end of the 90-minute discussion.

...The free event is open to the public and will be shown live on Chandler Channel 11 and broadcast several times throughout the week. Residents are encouraged by the Connection to send in questions for the candidates, which will be read by Johnson at the forum. Johnson can be reached at bjohnson@aztrib.com

Check out full article at Chandler Connection, which features quotes by the three candidates. Fast, before it disappears.

Chandler links roundup...

A number of links for your consideration:

1. "Even with all the homes that practically surround it and the hikers who climb all over it, South Mountain still is a sacred place to the Pima Indians...'This is the crown, the South Mountains. This is the crown for everything that is happening,' said Sara Bird-In-Ground, who is of Pima ancestry, and who lives on the Gila River Reservation." Very interesting story, here.

2. Ka-ching in Chandler's cash register is deafening. Story, here.

3. "Chandler public works officials say the city needs to spend nearly $68 million on street improvements before mid-2007 and $289 million over the next five years to relieve gridlock on some of the city's major roads." Story here.

4. "Chandler's downtown look continues to evolve, and now a prominent developer has made a new investment in the area.

Tom Bliss of Chandler City Center Developers this week acquired 95 W. Boston St., a 2,800-square-foot retail space immediately west of Saba's Western Wear that currently includes the Mesquite Furniture Store." Story here.

5. "Chandler is among several Valley cities challenging the results of a mid-decade census worth millions in state-shared revenue for fast-growing municipalities.

According to an appeal filed by Mayor Boyd Dunn with the U.S. Census Bureau, the 2005 count of 224,182 is well below the city's estimate of 238,426." Story here.

6. "Last month, [Barbara Knox] argued with councilmen Martin Sepulveda and Lowell Huggins about a city survey of alleyway garbage pickup.

Knox, who came to Chandler in 1947, is among eight Chandler women being recognized today at the Chandler Historical Society's 22nd annual pioneer luncheon at the Crowne Plaza San Marcos Golf Resort. The awards for pioneers of the year will be announced at the event." Story here.

Jake's take on Councilman Orlando.

Councilman Orlando contacted the Jake Files to suggest a phone conversation to address concerns raised in the Pentz affair and the subsequent recall effort. Jake demurred, and provided some thoughts on the situation, including a gentlemanly retraction of some harsh verbiage.

I understand Jake's preference to remain anonymous. If you have occasion to see this, Councilman Orlando, and are willing, I would be very eager to speak with you. I am overseas currently, but I can make arrangements to phone you at your convenience. I'll follow this up with an email with my particulars.

Councilman Huggins responds to my email on the Pentz affair.

I also sent Councilman Lowell Huggins a rather lengthy letter expressing my concerns about the Pentz affair and the recall. One of the questions I asked specifically was whether it was possible, or had there been any sign that there might have been a brewing conflict on the Council long before the Pentz affair arose.

Councilman Huggins didn't really address my specific questions. I suspect he's receiving quite a bit of correspondence on this issue and just isn't prepared to go in depth. However, he did respond with a short email, which I copy here in its entirety:

Dear George,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the performance evaluation of the city manager. The entire situation is quite unfortunate. I would like to apologize for what has transpired. It is my hope that we can remedy this situation by rehiring Mr. Pentz at a later date.

Thank you again for the comments. Your concern for our community is appreciated.

Best regards,

Lowell Huggins

I'm very appreciative of Councilman Huggins' response. I do hope to have the chance to speak with him in greater depth on this issue between now and November, as I think it's key to understanding what's going on.

Ray Pilara responds to my emails on the recall.

As my readers know, I've been quite conflicted and concerned about the City Council recall effort promoted by Ray Pilara. I've corresponded with a number of folks involved, including Councilman Lowell Huggins and Ray Pilara himself.

While I still do not agree with the appropriateness of the recall, I thought it would be helpful for people to understand where Ray is coming from. Hence, I've asked him if I could post our correspondence on this blog and he has agreed.

In the spirit, then, of considering this issue objectively, our four emails are copied below exactly as they were sent/received. I would sincerely like to thank Ray for his swift and thorough responses and for his permission to reproduce them here. I begin with my first email to him:

Dear Ray,

I must say, as a citizen of Chandler for a dozen years, and one of your neighbors, I was saddened to see the rift developing on our City Council. It seems to have been developing for some time, and erupted in this latest mess with Pentz. And I'm not happy at all with the way it was handled.

However, I must say that I am further concerned by your recall effort. It seems to be singling out Sepulveda and Orlando when there is clearly a pervasive toxic culture on the Council which includes, at the very least, Mayor Dunn as well.

I wonder if you could help me understand why you believe this recall will help heal the rift, as opposed to simply widening the gap. I appreciate your anger and frustration over the Pentz affair, but why are you prepared to undermine even further the stability of our elected offices by lobbying for this effort?

I'm also concerned at who might be bankrolling this recall effort - I believe you mentioned there are some people kicking in significant money to help it get going? In the interests of full disclosure and openness, I think the citizens of Chandler at least deserve to know who is funding this.

I hope you're able to respond to this email - I'm sincere in wanting to understand your position on this issue better.

Respectfully,
George Gregg
Chandler, AZ

Ray responded a few hours later with this email:

Dear Mr. Gregg,

You are correct, at this time the recall effort is singling out Mr. Orlando and Mr. Sepulveda. Since the council made its 5-2 vote in the wee hours of Tuesday morning April 11, I thought long and hard regarding Mayor Dunn. Reviewing his comments in the paper he "appears" to be acting in the best interests of Mr. Pentz and the city -> fairness to Mr. Pentz and preventing a civil action against the city. As for Donna Wallace and Phil Westbrooks, they will be leaving the council, so there is no reason to pursue them.

I believe the recall notifies "all" city council members present and future that ignoring the public has a cost. If you can suggest a better means to get through to these folks, by all means let me know. Recall is the only vehicle available to voters to let elected officials know when they have placed personal feeling and agendas above the public good. As a side note, have you seen in any article published where Mr. Orlando or Mr. Suplveda stated: I/we did this in the best interest of the city for the following reasons...? I have not! I also hope that if and when council members start promoting the good of the people, there will no longer be a rift - they will be working for a "common" cause.

You stated: "I'm concerned at who might be bankrolling this recall effort - I believe you mentioned here some people kicking in significant money to help get it going". I do not recall stating or implying that. There is no
one bankrolling this effort, all I have are emails wherein people have stated they would contribute to the action. None of the emails specified any monetary amount, in fact most only said they would carry petitions and get signatures. IF and when we do receive financial donations full disclosure, as mandated by law, will be made.

Respectfully
Ray Pilara

I then followed up with another email:

Dear Mr. Pilara,

I very much appreciate your swift and considerate response to my email.

First, let me apologize for a misunderstanding - I had read in an article a comment that was attributed to you that suggested that you had, even before beginning the recall effort, the assurances of some folks that they would support you financially. If that's not the case, then I do apologize and appreciate your clarification.

I must confess that I am not convinced that a recall is the best thing for Chandler, but I'm still trying to gather feedback from a number of people. I think your response is very helpful in understanding a bit better your position and feelings on this. May I please post our exchange on my blog? I think it would greatly help folks, as they consider this issue, to hear your comments.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yours,
George

Ray followed up with another response, shortly thereafter:

Mr. Gregg,

Yes you may post my reply on you blog. I would also like to know what feedback you receive, both for and against the recall. I hope "we" can get people active in the governance of this city - get them out to vote in the May run-off.

Please let me know how I can access your blog.

The only support received was from 2 people at the April 10 meeting stating; they would support a recall movement if one were started; there was no mention of money. There were 4 or five of us just voicing our opinions during a "short" break. I do not even know who they are.

Respecfully

Ray Pilara
P.S. If either Matt or Martin would have provided "valid" reasons why terminating Mark, was for the "good of the city", the recall probably would not have gone forward. (The same is true for Donna and Phil.)

***

You folks know where I stand, but I will let these emails speak for themselves. I'm following up with a brief email to Ray to let him know I've posted these and welcome his additional comments as he is inclined.

I would like to thank my neighbor Ray once more, very much, for his considerate responses to my inquiries. While we do not agree on this issue, I greatly appreciate his passion and concern for our city.