Blog For Arizona

Pod For Arizona: Oro Valley's Elections with Bill Garner and Salette Latas, and Blogger Art Segal

Recently, I had the opportunity to have a nice conversation with newly-elected Oro Valley Councilpersons Bill Garner and Salette Latas.

We discussed their astounding primary victories in which both of them managed to net over 60% of the primary vote, placing both of them directly on the Council from the primary: a first for an Oro Valley town election. In doing so, they beat three incumbents, knocking one of them out of the race and leaving the final two playing musical chairs for the final seat in the June general election.

We were joined in our discussion by Art Segal, the Bloggitor (my neologism of blogger/editor, like it?) of the Let Oro Valley Excel, or LOVE, blog. Art is something of a blog hero in my book: he stood up to legal threats and some fairly slimy political intimidation tactics by the Oro Valley Board through their Town Attorney before and during the town's election.

We discussed the many land-use, development, budget, tax, and water issues facing many of the swift-growing cities and towns of the desert Southwest. The conversation runs about an hour. Here is a chronology in case you are only interested in particular parts of our discussion:

1:00 What’s Happening in Oro Valley?
5:00 Motivation for Change
7:00 Transparent Government Popular Uprising
9:00 The Strategic Campaign Plan
13:00 The Vestar Tax Scam
17:00 Citizens Organize to Fight Back
18:00 The Online Campaign
20:00 The Coming General Election
25:00 The Issues the Next Council Will Face
28:00 Arroyo Grande
43:00 Zoning Hi-Jinks
45:00 Naranja Mega-Park
54:00 Growth Politics in Arizona (sorry, some brief audio difficulties)

Download OroValleyPolitics.mp3

Sheila Tobias on Donna Branch-Gilby for Pima County Supervisor

Sheila Tobias, a well-known educator and activist here in southern Arizona recently has been circulating her endorsement of Donna Branch-Gilby over incumbent Sharon Bronson in the Democratic primary for District 3 Pima County Supervisor. I thought it really well done, and worth a read for anyone trying to understand why Donna is challenging an incumbent Democrat:

Dear Friends:

A Board of Supervisors election rarely generates the passion and excitement of a presidential primary; or a congressional race; or even the contest for Mayor and City Council.

But, once you think about the power exerted by the Pima County Board of Supervisors over everything that matters, from plugging potholes to budgeting and managing the libraries, from juvenile detention to solid waste land fills, from ensuring the integrity of elections to waste water treatment, county property assessments and taxing, and approving (or rejecting) rezoning requests for homes and business development, you will realize, as I have come to realize: that the upcoming election to the Board of Supervisors matters very much to all of us who live here in the County.

The five supervisors sometimes appear to be a permanent body. With two of the Supervisors in their (well-paid by the way) positions for 12 and 10 years, a third for 8 and a fourth ensconced for six, I am supporting a challenger, Donna Branch Gilby, former Pima County Chair of the Democratic Party, most recently Vice-Chair of the State Party, because Donna is committed to voter integrity (see below) and balanced growth. She’s already been endorsed by the Election Integrity Committee of the Pima County Democratic Party.

Donna has explained to me the arcane workings of the Board of Supervisors – which we voters cannot alter; all we can do is to change the “cast of characters.”

Donna is running against a Democrat in a district that includes north Tucson and extends from the West side of Tucson to the Yuma County line and south to the Mexico border and includes the Tohono O’odham Nation. If you’re wondering why a Democrat would oppose another Democrat (and two of the other Democratic Supervisors are likely to be challenged by members of their own party this year as well), the reason resides in yet another responsibility that the Supervisors have, namely, determining voting modalities, and certifying elections. 

State law charges political parties with performing oversight of the election process; this includes monitoring the vote counting process.  When Donna chaired the Pima County Democratic Party, she spoke numerous times on this before the Board of Supervisors.  Her opponent in this election was the leading obstructionist.  Even after a 3½ day trial in December 2007, when Judge Michael Miller ruled that political party officials could examine the databases of the 2006 elections, Supervisor Bronson was calling for an appeal of the judge’s ruling.

With friends like these (on voter integrity), you don’t need enemies.

About Donna:

• Donna is a 40-year resident of Tucson with a Master’s in Public Administration from the U of A.  She taught supervisory and management skills to Dept of Economic Security staff for 20 years.  Was a member of AFSCME.

• Served as Chair of the Pima County Democratic Party in 2006 and then as 1^st Vice Chair of the Arizona Democratic Party in 2007

• Founder of the Arizona Women’s Political Caucus; served as a Director on the Boards of Tucson Peace Center, Planned Parenthood, Open Inn and as a Commissioner on the Tucson Human Relations Commission for 8 years. 

• She lives with her husband Bob Gilby at Milagro Cohousing - a Community in Balance with Nature, which they co-founded in 2001. She is the mother of Michelle Williams, MD, Tucson, and Toby Branch, AIA, Denver.

Donna’s priorities – including voter integrity – are ours:

• Balanced growth – to ensure that the population of Pima County doesn’t exceed our water supplies – employing the Board’s power over

  •      zoning,

  •      building  codes,

  • impact fees,

  • determining where sewer lines will go

  
  Thus, the Board could communicate to developers that in-fill rather than sprawl is a Pima County priority; and make that ruling stick!

• Transportation –through the budgeting process,

• Election process – through funding and supervision over the County Elections Division

• Open Decisions – Openly Arrived At

• Taking more leadership so that the professional County Administrator (who has also been on the job a long time, directing policy from behind the scenes) implements Board policy rather than his own.

The Pima County Board of Supervisors is required by law to hold open “Study Sessions” at which upcoming decisions (not laws – they do not legislate) are supposed to be publicly aired. But  for the past several years, these “Study Sessions” have been routinely canceled. Donna wants to bring in the kind of experienced people who invite input, criticism, and other (better) ideas when appropriate to a discussion or a decision.

Donna is likely to be opposed in her bid to unseat Supervisor Bronson (in office since 1996) by the Arizona Home Builders, Realtors, and others who have come to benefit from her long incumbency.

Once you meet Donna Branch-Gilby, you will know that she would make the Board of Supervisors more responsive to the views and the needs of people like us.

What you can do?:

• Offer your support publicly, by adding your name to a list of supporters.

• Volunteer, especially to do research on the impact of the Board’s actions/inaction on the utility service delivery boundary.

• Make a financial contribution. County elections are not part of “Clean Elections,” so candidates must raise funds traditionally – by asking. The maximum allowed contribution is $390 per person each election cycle.  Checks to “Branch-Gilby 2008” may be sent to P.O. Box 85781, Tucson, AZ 85754 

• Join me at a Meet the Candidate party at the home of

Bob and Joan Kaye Cauthorn
Wednesday, April 2,  5:30 – 7:30 pm
30 N Camino Espanol
One block North and East of Broadway and Country Club.

Our LD 28 State Representatives Deserve Your Support

My State Representatives, Steve Farley and David Bradley, are two of the good guys. They do a heck of good job and are just damned good liberal Democrats with solid progressive values. I don't mind that David is obsessed with the welfare of everyone's kids and Steve with his trains; I think it's charming, in fact.

And Steve is kind of freakishly into his job. His email Farleygrams are wonderfully informative, and he has a 100% perfect attendance and voting record—David's is good, too, of course, but Steve's a legislatin' machine. We are getting every dime's worth, and then some for the pittance we pay these guys.

If you want to subscribe to Steve's Farleygrams, fill in your email:

I wish David were running clean so that I could encourage you to send him Clean Elections qualifying $5s... but he's not, so just tell him you'd like to send him a little filthy lucre... but would rather be sending him Clean money.

Steve is running Clean and is now collecting his $5s. Download Steve's Qualifying Contributions Form (PDF). You can only contribute qualifying $5s if you live in LD 28. If you don't know what legislative district you live in, you can easily find out courtesy of our awesome Democratic Pima County Recorder, F. Ann Rodriguez.

Meet Sydney Hay, Republican Lobbyist and Ideologue Seeking to Fill Tricky Dick Renzi's Purloined Shoes

Mining industry lobbyist and candidate for Congress in CD 1, Sydney Hay put together a very nice introductory video for her campaign. It illustrates very clearly why the GOP won't manage to hang on to CD 1: they are absolutely bereft of ideas.

Hay's campaign looks like it was cobbled together out of most extreme rantings and wacky policies of the Right over the past 20 years, the dissicated corpses of Reagan and Goldwater, and the most disingenuous and empty rhetoric the Right has fallen back on in defense of the massive failures of the Bush years, all held together by a 'values' appeal that already passé among evangelicals and fundamentalists, let alone the general public.

You can always tell when a social movement is effectively dead by how nostalgic its members become about a claimed Golden Age. In the case of the Conservative Movement, their necromantic rites centering around Reagan and Goldwater are increasingly elaborate, central to their religion, and frankly pitiful.

Sure, we Democrats have our culture heroes—FDR, JRK, RFK, MLK—but we aren't nearly so strident about hearkening back to their particular strain of liberalism as a lost Golden Age that we must return to, and to which our politicians must pay obsequious obescience.

That's because Liberalism is alive and kicking and growing. Conservatism is a dead and discredited credo, destroyed by Bush and the Republican Congress of 1994-2006, now seeking a leader who can revivify it with a fresh perspective and newly invigorated values. That leader doesn't seem to be Sydney Hay—she's too ideologically rigid to acknowledge any new ideas.

I was really amused by the enthusiastic and detailed endorsement by Arizona Republican Congressman Trent Franks. Since the incumbent is in the dock, Renzi can't exactly pass the establishment torch, so Trent from next door is pinch-hitting. It should prove amusing to watch the Republican candidates in CD 1 madly scramble to avoid any association with Renzi.

Trent credits Sydney with a number of key accomplishments. He indicates she lead the campaign to require a super-majority for any tax increase in Arizona. The result has been to ratchet down tax rates permanently, destroying the Arizona state government's ability to fund essential services. Trent tells us that Sydney, a former teacher, also was largely responsible for the failed experiment of charter schools, and for diverting taxes to private and parochial schools.

Polices Sydney claims credit for have over the last two decades been largely responsible for Arizona's free-fall to nearly the bottom among U.S. states in almost every educational metric. With accomplishments like these in her past, electing her to office is sure to result in policies that will make us even more backward, poor, and uncompetitive.

Let's take a quick look at some of the 'ideas' Sydney wants to take to Congress...

Foster Upset Victory Something for Super-Delegate Giffords to Consider

With Gabby Giffords holding an uncommitted vote for our next Democratic Presidential nominee, it would be wise of her to consider what that nominee can bring to her own race for re-election.

Rookie scientist-citizen candidate Bill Foster's 53-47 upset victory in former Speaker Dennis Hastert's old district demonstrates that Obama, who endorsed and campaigned for Foster, has the ability to provide strong cross-partisan coattails and heavy favorable turn-out in a Republican district, even before his nomination. The 14th District historically has been very Republican, re-electing Hastert with 60 percent of the vote in 2006 and giving President Bush 55 percent of the vote in 2004.

Gabby faces a similar challenge as a freshman Member in a formerly Repubulican-held, and still Republican-plurality district. Whose endorsement would serve her re-election chances better? Who does she want cutting ads for her as the Presidential nominee? Who does she want stumping for her in her district?

Many viewed the Foster-Oberweis contest as a proxy fight of sorts between Obama (backing Foster) and McCain (backing Oberweis). Clearly Obama had the home-state advantage, but McCain had the numbers in the district.

Come November, with McCain certain to be the nominee, he'll have a home-state advantage in Arizona's CD 8 that Tim Bee is hoping to parlay into a victory in this plurality-Republican district.

Gabby would be best served by the backing of a nominee who has a proven ability to provide coat-tails in even in a much more Republican district—IL's 14th—than AZ's 8th. At this point, the only alternative to Sen. Obama for Gabby is a nominee who has long-entrenched negatives among Republicans, and who—at least in comparison to Sen. Obama—leaves Independents cold. And Independents will decide the Congressional race in CD 8.

Gabby would do well to ponder deeply the miracle that Bill Foster pulled off with Obama's help when she decides who should get her vote for Democratic nominee at the convention.

Sharon Bronson's Promise to SEIU

Service Employee International Union won the right to represent County employees when the Board of Supervisors unanimously approved their representation last April. Nearly a year on and the County Administrator has continually dragged his feet on a 'Meet and Confer' process, throwing up numerous procedural roadblocks and legal hurdles in an effort to avoid direct talks with SEIU that would lead to a Memoradum of Understanding on working conditions and wages.

On the 28th of February, SEIU held a forum for Pima County Supervisor candidates to give them a chance to get behind the union's goals, and specifically the 'Meet and Confer' process with an eye toward determining which candidates, if any, the union would endorse. All of them expressed strong support for the union, even the two Republicans on the Board were very supportive of SEIU's goals.

So why, more than a year after SEIU was authorized by the Board, hasn't the county Administration yet begun a 'Meet and Confer' process with SEIU? How can it be that all 5 board members are fully in support of SEIU, but they have been unable to produce meaningful consultation and good-faith negotiation with the Administration? Who's in charge here, after all?

One board member who is up for re-election this year, Sharon Bronson, has drawn a primary challenge from former Pima County Democratic Party Chairwoman Donna Branch-Gilby. Faced by a challenge from a well-known, well-connected, and well-liked Democratic woman, Bronson has surely got to be very nervous about her prospects for re-election.

Bronson spontaneously promised SEIU that if CHuckelberry didn't move forward with 'Meet and Confer' within 10 days, she would place the matter on the agenda and force him to do so.

That was the 28th. By my generous reckoning, CHuckelberry has until next Monday, March 10th, to sit down with SEIU before Bronson lays down the law for him. That is, if she actually meant what she told SEIU. We'll see if Bronson has the brass to push CHuckelberry into doing something he obviously has no desire to do.

I certainly don't see any reference to the matter in the agenda as yet...

What's a Super-Delegate To Do?

UPDATE: It's been brought to my attention by an old DNC hand, whose expertise I will gladly defer to, that my terminology in this article tends to be misleading. A Party Leader and Elected Official (PLEO) delegate also refers to a species of state-wide pledged delegate that only certain officials are qualified to become - but they are still pledged delegates, not "super-delegates". Actual "super-delegates" are unpledged delegates, who are drawn from a subset of party leaders and elected officials (the particular species of those critters that are unpledged, or "super," delegates are accurately listed below). Thus, there are unpledged PLEOs ("super-delegates") and pledged PLEOs (pledged delegates that must be a qualified office-holder, which is a way to reserve the political plum of attending and voting at the convention for the real players). Though I made the distinction that I meant unpledged PLEOs when I used the unqualified term 'PLEO', the fact that there are two species of PLEO could be misleading. I know that all this is slightly confusing, but merely add the word 'unpledged' to the acronym 'PLEO' wherever it occurs, and the article should be entirely accurate. I regret the confusion, and I put the blame squarely were it belongs - on every else but me and my helpful expert :)

It seems apparent that the Democratic nominee for President will be determined not by primary voters and caucus-goers, but by those mysterious super-delegates. What are they, how much influence do they have, and how should they decide for whom they should cast their votes?

Officially, the 795 super-delegates (about 20% of the total number of delegates) are 'unpledged party leader and elected official delegates', often referred to as PLEO delegates.

The Democratic PLEO delegates consist of:

• Current members of the Democratic National Committee
  
• Current Democratic members of the House of Representatives
• Current Democratic members of the United States Senate
• Current Democratic governors
• Former Democratic presidents & vps
• Former Democratic leaders of the United States Senate
• Former Democratic Speakers of the House
• Former Democratic House Minority Leaders
• Former Chairs of the Democratic National Committee

Arizona's PLEO delegates are:

• DNC Members
  • Donald Bivens
  • Janice C. Brunson
  • Donna Branch Gilby
  • Joe Rios
  • Carolyn Warner
• U.S. House of Representatives
  • Gabrielle Giffords
  • Raul Grijalva
  • Harry E. Mitchell
  • Ed Pastor
• Governor Janet Napolitano

The PLEOs were created in 1982 in order to give the party more internal control of the nomination process following the reforms of the McGovern-Fraser Commission in 1968, under which rules McGovern was able to run his 1972 insurgent, anti-war, populist campaign that captured the nomination, but lost miserably to Nixon.

One of the concerns of the DNC in creating superdelegates was to prevent the nomination process from being captured from a narrow faction of party activists. There was concern about low turn-out in the primaries and especially the caucuses in the years between 1968 and 1980, often trending as low as 10-20% of eligible party members. That, combined with with the bad losses suffered in 1972 and 1980, and the under-representation at the Conventions of elected officials, led the party to pull back from a purely democratic approach to nominating.

There is a fundamental tension in the existence of PLEOs; they were created to perform a fundamentally undemocratic function - to moderate populist sentiment. Yet to have legitimacy, they have had to function merely as an extension of the primary system. Were they to change the outcome of the primary process by handing the nomination to the candidate who was behind in the pledged delegate count, most would view that as undemocratic and illegitimate. Yet they were created free of any constraint in how they voted at the convention precisely to bring to bear their superior experience and knowledge to the nomination process. They are supposed to do what they think is best for the party, but if the majority of them see the world differently than primary voters, there would be a great deal of dissatisfaction with their actions.

Many would have PLEOs constrained by their relevant constituency. For instance a Congressmember would be constrained to vote for the winner of the primary or caucus in their district, a DNC member by the outcome in their state, and so on. But not only does that remove all independence from the PLEO, it also doesn't allow for the option of choosing the candidate who won the most pledged delegates nationally. Is it more legitimate to choose one criteria over another? If the PLEO can chose their own standards, they can effectively choose almost any candidate they like. So why not just accept their discretion to chose, as the party rules allow?

Ultimately, the freedom of the PLEO is not compatible with any reasonable theory of democratic legitimacy that could justify giving PLEOs a vote. Each pledged delegate represents thousands of voters, each PLEO ultimately only represents one, yet their votes are treated equally. That is deeply illegitimate. Of course, this elides the issue that there is no actual enforcement mechanism behind the pledge of any delegate, effectively putting each delegate on the honor system and making each a PLEO in his or her own right - but at least a pledged delegate is duty bound, and will suffer reputational harm for exploiting the independence a PLEO takes for granted.

How should PLEOs behave? And is there still a role for PLEOs in the nomination process now that the conditions that gave rise to the creation (most notably in this cycle, the absence of low turnouts) are no longer as relevant? If PLEOs merely echo and amplify the choice of the primary voters and caucus participants, why have them at all?

I don't believe that PLEOs are constrained by ethics, and certainly not by party rules, to vote for the candidate who has the most pledged delegates going into the convention. They are intended to be independent and they are. But does that imply that it would be legitimate for them to overturn the popular will?

In probably the most relevant prior nomination process under the current rules, Gary Hart and Walter Mondale arrived at the 1984 convention neck and neck, but with neither having enough pledged delegates to capture the prize. Mondale was ahead in pledged delegates, just 40 shy of the nomination, and PLEOs put him over the top. The result was the amplification of result of the primary process. The PLEOs clenched the deal for Mondale, but he was already ahead.

But would it have been acceptable for the PLEOs to decide that Hart was a stronger candidate and better for he party and throw their support to him, thwarting the will of the electorate? Arguably, it wouldn't have changed anything except a few trivia questions, but it certainly would have been defensible under the current rules and completely legal - there would be no redress or recourse available to Mondale, and the Democratic Party would have just had to accept Hart as the nominee. The only question in my mind is whether the PLEO system would have survived such an outcome.

Could the PLEOs decide the nomination this year? Absolutely.

Could they give it to the candidate who comes to the convention with less pledged delegates? Absolutely.

Would that be an acceptable outcome under the current nomination rules? Absolutely.

The obvious question raised is whether we need to change those rules. Should we continue to allow PLEOs the power that they have to overturn the popular will as expressed through proportionally allocated pledged delegates? I would argue that we should not.

The PLEOs don't have a place in the nomination process if the Democratic Party aspires to be the democratically legitimate voice of the electorate. The roughly 800 PLEOs, through their position as elected leaders of the party do have a certain degree of democratic legitimacy in their own right, but not enough to overturn the expressed will of millions of Democrats participating in the nomination process. The PLEO system is a tool of rank paternalism and elitist mistrust of the electorate that wasn't legitimate when adopted, and isn't legitimate now.

If the PLEO system is used to overturn the will of the electorate at this convention, it would certainly be within the current rules and within the power currently granted to PLEOs, but it would almost certainly be a death-blow to the PLEO system itself. The only way that PLEOs will continue to exist is if they follow the example of the 1984 convention and merely bless the leader who is just short of the goal. And if all the PLEOs can do with any democratic legitimacy is to ratify and amplify the outcome of the primary process, what is its purpose?

One of the major reasons why the candidates can hit the convention without any of them having the needed majority is the PLEO system itself. Why have a system that contributes to the problem it is meant to solve? Why have a system containing the seeds of its own delegitimation - not to mention the ability to deeply discredit a Democratic Presidential ticket? We should hope that the PLEOs act wisely at this Convention, and then get rid of the system before it blows up in our faces.

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to BlogForArizona.com with your favorite RSS reader, or get posts delivered to your email.

Ron Paul Points the Way For Democrats in Congress

Rs and Ds at all levels, but especially among those competing to be the next Commander in Chief, constantly fight over which party is the champion of our armed forces.

The Rs claim that title by dint of massive and reckless appropriations and a belligerant, wooden-headed foreign policy that gives the armed forces plenty of opportunity to ply their craft.

The Ds claim the honor by lavishing as much attention and money as possible on veterans benefits, trying to improve the conditions and equipment the soldiers must endure during active duty, and, of late, madly shoveling money in the maw of the Iraq occupation in the vain hope that no Republican will be mean to them.

It is deeply ironic, therefore, that the odd man out in the Presidential race, the Republican who advocates for a much more limited and humble foreign policy than any Democrat dares, and who demands an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, and who levels an even harsher criticism of the policies that led us there than most Democrats can (because he actually voted against the invasion), leads by a very wide margin in fund-raising among armed forces personnel.

In fact, one can clearly see that the more of a "surrender-monkey" the candidate is on Iraq and foreign policy in general, the better our men and women in arms likes him (or her).

Military donations in the 4th quarter of 2008:

Paul: $286,764 (1349 donors)

Obama: $81,037 (466 donors)

McCain: $79,597 (413 donors)

Clinton: $49,523 (181 donors)

Romney: $29,250 (140 donors)

Huckabee: $24,562 (94 donors)

Nor is this a one-time anomaly, it is an established pattern. Ron Paul is the bottom-line choice of the active duty military.

The one exception to the trend is McCain, who obviously gets points and well-deserved respect from the troops for his biography. Were it his position on the Iraq occupation that soldiers were rewarding, he would be bracketed by Romney and Huckabee, who also support the continuation of the failed Iraq occupation, rather than Obama and Clinton.

If McCain would have reversed himself on Iraq earlier, he wouldn't have wandered in the political wilderness until GOP primary voters got panicked enough to turn to him, and he would be a much stronger Presidential candidate for it -- and likely the top pick of the military instead of Paul.

As Democrats running for Congress carefully triangulate to ensure that they "don't abandon the troops" by cutting off funding for Iraq to bring Bush to the bargaining table, they might keep Ron Paul's overwhelming military support firmly in mind.

That means you, Gabby Giffords and Harry Mitchell -- as well as you hopefuls, Bob Lord and Ann Kirkpatrick. The troops want brave leadership willing to bring a misbegotten war to close every bit as much as most other Americans.

Our troops have tremendous esprit de corps and a steely determination to accomplish the mission - even if it is an impossible one. It's their job to lock their jaws and squeeze the life out of our enemies.

The job of the political leadership is to have the wisdom to know when and where it is prudent to unleash the dogs of war -- and when to put them back in the kennel. Our troops clearly recognize and value the kind of political leadership needed to end this mission-less war, even as they say they are determined to stay the course when the pols come wandering through like baby ducklings on yet another fact finding tour through the international zone.

Tim Bee's Big Surprise

Tim Bee stunned the Arizona political scene with a completely unexpected announcement that he is challenging Gabby Giffords for the CD 8 Congressional seat.

Seriously, though, Tim made it official -- he's in. I know, I was there. And, no, I didn't get tazed, Bro.

It was the kind of non-news news event one expects in the kabuki dance of American politics. But there were a few interesting bits.

Much more after the flip...

Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer Draws a Line in the Sand on RealID

Link: Montana Governor Foments Real ID Rebellion.

"Today, I am asking you to join with me in resisting the DHS coercion to comply with the provisions of REAL ID, " Schweitzer wrote. "If we stand together either DHS will blink or Congress will have to act to avoid havoc at our nation's airports and federal courthouses."

I love this man. He is the Left's answer to Ron Paul. Fiercely principled, populist, and undaunted by any political fight; a man you would like on your side when the it comes to a throw down. And he loves his dog -- brings Jag to the office every day. That says something damn positive about a man, in my opinion.

Read his whole letter to the Governors.

I wonder why our Governor isn't joining in on this? I know for a fact that she would find a lot of support across the aisle on this issue.

The Nominees to Fill Lena Saradnik's LD 26 Legislative Seat

This Friday, 1/18, at 10 a.m., the Pima County Board of Supervisors will meet to select the new State Representative for LD 26 to replace Lena Saradnik, who recently resigned for health reasons. By Monday a new Representative will be driving up to Phoenix to join the budget battle.

The elected LD 26 PCs tonight selected the slate of three nominees from which the Board will select that new Representative. The PCs preference, and that of Lena Saradnik, couldn't have been any more clear: they want Don Jorgenson as their new Representative.

Pima County Supervisor Ray Carroll Endorses Salette Latas for Oro Valley Town Council

Today, Pima County Supervisor Ray Carroll announced his support for Salette Latas in the race for one of three seats on the Oro Valley Town Council.

This may be the beginning of a much-needed non-partisan alliance against the profligate give-away of our local tax base in the name of "economic development" in Arizona's communities. Carroll, a Republican, and Latas, an Democrat, both quite obviously get it, and aren't respecting party labels in supporting others who also get it. Such a non-partisan, issue-based focus is a perfect fit for the non-partisan Oro Valley race.

 

Carroll's statement announced, “Salette Latas is a champion of local businesses and residents of Oro Valley. She will listen to the community, and work with all members of the Council to do what is best for Oro Valley's residents, not what special interests tell her to do.”

 

“At a time when economic growth is slowing, adding more burden on taxpayers makes no sense,” stated Carroll in his announcement. “After over $50 million in tax subsidies were given to out-of-town developers, and after passing a utility tax in 2006, Oro Valley’s Council members are now advocating further tax subsidies for a foreign corporation and pushing for a new property tax. The people of Oro Valley deserve a fiscally responsible Council that will stop tax subsidies to special interests.”

 

Earlier this month, Supervisor Carroll was awarded the Arizona Federation of Taxpayers’ first-ever Local Hero Award (http://www.aztaxpayers.org), for dissenting when the Pima County Board of Supervisors voted to increase its budget by 14.3 percent and increase property tax levies by $34 million, and also for leading the successful resistance to imposing a new half-cent county sales tax.

 

Following Carroll’s announcement, Latas stated “I truly appreciate the support from an Arizona Taxpayers’ Hero. It’s time to end subsidies to corporations at the expense of taxpayers. Supervisor Carroll understands that this trend must stop. I will fight to represent the public interest and locally owned, independent business over the special interests of out-of-town corporations.”