Blog For Arizona

Mule Train Mail: Dr. Steve Gall on the Mandatory Recess Bill

Unfortunately, the State House did not vote on the 30 minute recess in elementary school bill, HB 2037.

It has now gone to a Conference Committee of Senate and House members for clarification on charter schools.  According to Rep. Mark Anderson, Republican of Mesa, the bill should come up for a vote again next week in the full house. 

I urge you to e-mail your local state representatives to support HB 2037 which states that every public school grades 1-6 have at least a 30 minute recess period for the children. 

This bill is crucial for the total development of the youngsters.  Some schools are cutting recess to improve their AIMS scores.  Research tells us that these students perform better on tests with a recess break of at least 30 minutes.

FEC Complaint Against Bee Ad Certain To Languish

by Michael Bryan

I am reminded by the Bee complaint (and legal eagles with whom I consult on these matters) that the FEC currently only has two members, which means it does not have a quorum and cannot conduct any official business.

This is why the DNC complaint against McCain for promising to take public funds to secure a multi-million-dollar loan and then exceeding the FEC primary caps has not been acted on, either.  The appointments to the FEC are tied up over a dispute between Republicans who want their entire slate of appointees approved in a single vote (because some of them are just too atrocious even for Republicans to be seen voting for), and Democrats who want individual up or down votes on each nominee.

If this dispute is not resolved, the FEC will not be able to issue checks for public  financing of the fall campaign, and the FEC also will not be able to address the complaint against Bee (though it may be assigned to an investigative staff member).

Tim Bee's campaign may have legal liability if there is evidence to show that his campaign coordinated this ad with the Educational Financial Reform Group (EFRG). Proof of such co-ordination could possibly be contained in the b-roll of the footage shot to produce the ad, which may be why Cox Communications and Public Policy Partners who created the ad have so far proven unwilling to release that material to the media. We'll see if they are more cooperative with the FEC investigators when they demand access to that material. Wouldn't it be convenient if that material were somehow destroyed or lost in an administrative SNAFU in the interim?

The fines, if any, against the EFRG and/or the school districts will likely not be too severe; probably 100-200% of the amount in violation ($16K, we know of so far). But in extreme cases, the fines can start with a base of $10K and add as much as 1000% of the amount in violation. So there are potential fines of approaching $200K involved, but such fines would not be applied to Bee's campaign unless he coordinated with the maker of the ad.

There is also the issue of just who the heck the EFRG actually is. Who are it's board of directors and officers? How are they organized and how do they report their activities? What is its budget and how is has it been spent? What is the organization's charter and does it actually provide for lobbying expenditures? Who actually made the decision to spend public funds in this manner? There needs to be much more transparency about these questions if public funds are to be spent to influence public policy. So far, none of those questions have been answered to my satisfaction.

There are really two issues here, however: a legal issue, and a moral issue.  It is not clear at this point whether the Bee campaign did anything legally wrong themselves. But it appears that the EFRG organization may have broken both federal and Arizona elections laws. Will they be held to account for it? Whoever 'they' may be?

But even if this instance of electioneering were perfectly legal, which I doubt, the school districts' spending district tax dollars in support of a candidate rather than on the education of our children is just wrong. Considering the the base funding rate for a pupil in Arizona is just over $6K, a year's worth of education for two children was spent on this silly "Thank You" to Bee.

Giffords Nixes Impeachment

DFATucson has been pressing Gabby Giffords for awhile now to get off the dime on impeachment and, as a very minimal sign that she's willing to fulfill the Constitutional role for which we hired her, perhaps sign a letter being circulated by Rep. Wexler calling for investigations of possible criminal acts by the Bush Administration (which could lead to an impeachment).

To that end, DFATucson has been demonstrating with a "Honk to Impeach" rally outside Gabby's office every Monday from 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. (drive time). The rallies have been very well-received by the public and have brought a lot of awareness to members of Gabby's staff how much sentiment in favor of impeachment there is among the public, as well as some press coverage.

One good thing the Gabby did was direct her Chief of Staff, Maura Policelli and much of the rest of her local staff to meet with DFATucson regarding impeachment. Video of that meeting will be available online very soon.

DFATucson recently got an email from Policelli recently outlining the Congesswoman's position on impeachment:

"The bottom line is that Congresswoman Giffords will not be signing on to impeachment legislation, resolutions or letters.  I know that is a disappointment to your group, but assure you that Gabrielle is working tirelessly on many local problems and national issues of great significance."

In other words, Gabby's not willing to lift a finger to protect the Constitution from the criminals inhabiting our White House.

What I find most mystifying about Giffords' attitude is her apparent blindness (though, admittedly it isn't just her, but the entire gang of "Shrumian" consultants that she and Democrats like her are wont to heed) to the strategic politics of impeachment.

The standard Democratic defense of sitting on our thumbs regarding impeachment goes like this: we are winning the debate, so don't change the terms. We are headed toward an easy victory in 2008 with a Democratic President and larger margins in Congress (maybe even a filibuster-proof majority), so why allow the Republicans to stir up a mess over impeachment, accusing us of using it as a political ploy (which they would certainly be able to recognize from experience, I guess...). You are just playing into their hands and walking our Democratic candidates into a political buzz saw with no benefit. These guys are lame ducks and out of there in less than a year anyhow...

This is kind of political deep thought that gives us Democrats consultants with win-loss records like Bob Shrum, hence my derision for these political Solons as "Shrumians." This line of thought might seem like prudent wisdom to you, but in fact it is just an example of how Democratic strategists have so consistently snatched defeat from the jaws of victory so frequently in recent years.

It can be summed up in a single word: timidity.

The voters don't much care for it, and politics isn't very kind to those who are characterized by it. Timidity is the reason why Congress' polling is in the toilet no matter how much good and useful legislation they manage to pass. People can smell it in their leaders—and Americans don't respect the timid. Americans would much rather you be bold and wrong than timid and right. They worship you and put you on our money if your happen to be lucky and wise enough to be bold and right.

Let's take Gabby's race against Tim Bee as an exemplar for a tight contest in a swing state, which it really is, and think about the political consequences of impeachment rearing it's "game changing," "suck the air out of the room," "playing into the GOP's hands" head.

What is the first thing that would happen if Gabby in some way advocated impeachment? Why the GOP would attack her as a loon, and accuse her of playing politics. Great. She gets a few news cycles to lay out all the very specific and well-documented ways in which this Administration has broken the law and violated the public trust. Her cred with the Democractic base and at least 2/3rds of independents goes through the roof.

Now, Tim Bee gets a choice. Does he join in the baying from the GOP, or does he lay low? From what I know of Tim, he may lie low and try to say little. Why? Because the last thing he wants to spend his slice of the public's attention on is defending the record of the Bush Administration's excesses and policy failures. He wants to run as some other kind of Republican... preferably one that isn't from the Republican Party that contains Bush and Cheney and their menagerie of chuckleheads, NeoCons, and religious maniacs.

Which is why the worst possible thing for the GOP is to make this election about Bush's record. Which is why we should make it about Bush's record. He's a lame duck, so the only way to do that with any political potency is by injecting the issue of impeachment into the election.

Gabby and her "Shrumians" hope that by trying to appear moderate and prudent and vewy, vewy qwiet, she can eek out a victory over Tim in November. Tim hopes pretty much the same thing. Either of them could be right about the outcome with that strategy. More likely Gabby will be proven right—but it's no sure thing.

How to turn that into a landslide? By hanging Bush around Bee's neck like a rotting albatross, and making Tim try to convince voters it smells good. Defending Bush against the threat of impeachment is the only way to get Bee to stand up for the Bush legacy.

Once Bee is forced into that corner, he's done. No squeaky margins—we have a landslide. Independents and Democrats will deliver hard and enthusiastic margins and even a lot of Republicans won't be able to stomach Bee defending wiretapping, torture, politicizing our justice system, outing our intelligence assets for political revenge, and unconstitutional signing statements, just to name of few of the acts Bee could be forced to answer for or publicly repudiate.

Many in Gabby's camp think they need moderate Republican votes to beat Bee. They are only going to get them if Bee cannot be seen as any sort of moderate Republican. Nor does Gabby need them if she fully engages the ire of the independents against the last 6 years of Republican rule. Only by luring the Bee into the Bush, as it were, will independent produce the huge Democratic margins that they will when the issue is the Bush record.

By making this election only about the future, and failing to acknowledge and make strategic political use of the history we just suffered through by taking impeachment "off the table," Gabby and Democrats like her are giving their Republican rivals a chance to redefine themselves and distance themselves from the Bush legacy that is rightfully theirs to bear.

By running solely on how she and the rest of the Democratic Congress are "working tirelessly on many local problems and national issues of great significance," Gabby is ensuring the kind of tight race that impels her to such contemptible timidity in the face of outrageous assaults on the rule of law and our constitutional order.

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...

Graf Resignation Not Prelude to New Campaign... not for office, anyhow

by Michael Bryan

After Arizona 8th reported that Randy Graf resigned from the Pima GOP Executive Committee, there was some speculation that perhaps Graf was getting ready to mount a campaign.

There had been rumors in the past that Graf was considering a run for Pima County Supervisor in District 4, challenging incumbent Ray Carroll. I never gave it much credence as the post hardly seems political enough for Graf. Given that the most obvious motivation for a run was Graf's present support of Election Integrity activists seeking the release of public elections records, running against Carroll (the Board's most staunch critic on the issue) wouldn't make much sense. But who can fathom the mind of the movement conservative? So maybe?

But no.

I spoke to Graf, and he denied that he would stand for any office in 2008. He resigned purely to focus on personal and professional matters. He did leave the door open to 2010 and beyond however. I'm glad. I don't know what Democrats would do without Graf to kick around.

But what is Graf's new gig that forces him to resign from party leadership? Hmmm... lobbyists can't be party officers, can they?

Graf attended a recent public meeting in Green Valley about Augusta's controversial   proposed Rosemont mine in the Santa Ritas, and spoke in favor of the mine:

One member of the audience, Green Valley's Randy Graf, noted that mining was a major reason much of the American Southwest was settled and developed.

He said mining production is much more modern and less destructive than in the 19th century, and said it was good people “were here learning about the process.”

He said, “I don't think people should dismiss it without” a better understanding.

Maybe Randy's getting a job with Augusta? I can certainly see Augusta buying up some local political muscle in their fight to open the Rosemont mine. And Randy can't do that job while a member of the Executive Committee...

Augusta wasn't above shipping outside ringers in for the Forrest Service's public meeting in Green Valley who were promised a free meal and thought they were going to learn more about new high-paying jobs.

[Ray Carroll] was critical of how Augusta on the previous night attracted proponents to the hearing by offering them a free meal and a bus ride to the site.

Wednesday, Jamie Sturgess, an Augusta vice president, issued an explanation of the incident, saying apparently some of those who turned out thought it was “an opportunity to learn about jobs.”

Sturgess wrote in a memo, “Rosemont provided a setting for project supporters to gather at a local restaurant and provided transportation to those who requested it to the Forest Service scoping meeting,” in Tucson.

His memo acknowledged that some may have come hoping to learn about high-paying jobs, and he said, the company “is very encouraged by the high level of interest in the 500 new jobs Rosemont Copper will be hiring.”

Read the Sturgess Memo (PDF)

If Rosemont is willing to blatantly stack a community meeting with ringers, why not hire a local political gun like Graf to help with the PR in a certain segment of the electorate and to help ease the process (i.e. lobby) with government officials, many of whom Graf knows?

If this isn't the plan, I strongly encourage Augusta and Graf to get together for a chat: it could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

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...

GOP Goes Nuts Over Giffords Talking with Constituents About Impeachment of Bush/Cheney

Upon learning that Rep. Giffords sent her Chief of Staff, Maura Policelli to meet with DFA/Tucson about impeachment, the Pima County GOP issued a press release which stated:

"Gabby Giffords' Chief of Staff Maura Policelli tonight will be the special guest at a meeting of the Tucson chapter of Democracy for America, a far left-wing activist group bent on seeing that President Bush and Vice President Cheney are impeached.

"'There are real problems facing southern Arizona like border security, healthcare and education,' Pima County Republican Party Chair Judi White said. 'It's hard to believe that Congresswoman Giffords would dispatch her top aide to such a frivolous event.'

"According to the agenda posted on the group's Web site, Policelli will participate in a discussion over topics relating to impeachment, including H. RES. 799, a resolution calling for the impeachment of the Vice President introduced by Congressman Dennis Kucinich."

Yet at the meeting with Policelli, the Congresswoman's Chief of Staff told the crowd that Giffords agreed with the view that this Administration is out of control, and further that Giffords would be in favor hearings in the House Judiciary Committee to determine if acts of Bush Administration officials might constitute impeachable offenses. Giffords did vote to refer articles of impeachment to the Judiciary Committee for further consideration. Policelli indicated that the Congresswoman takes her oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution quite seriously. Video of the conversation between Policelli and constituents favoring impeachment will be available online soon.

DFA/Tucson leaders were very pleased by the common ground they found with Giffords' Chief of Staff and the Congresswoman's views, and are excited to continue working with Rep. Giffords to hold the Administration to account according to Dr. Ray Graap and Dick Kaiser, two of the organizers of the impeachment movement in Tucson. They are looking forward to Gifford's response to their letter suggesting that she sign on to Rep. Wexler's petition to begin just such an inquiry.

As to criticism from the GOP of Giffords for sending her staff to meet with community leaders on the issue of impeachment, such rhetoric is certainly not unexpected from a party so badly out-of-touch with Pima County's voters. But Chairwoman Judy White's characterization of citizens who are insisting that impeachment be considered by the Congress as the sole means of countering this Administration's abuses of power as "far left-wing" and "frivolous" is deeply undercut by the caliber and ideological disposition of those who are leading advocates of impeachment inquiries nationally. Serious legal professionals such as the American Lawyers Defending the Constitution support enforcing the rule of law through impeachment inquiries. Prominent conservative legal experts, such as Reagan Administration Justice Department official Bruce Fein, strongly support impeachment from a principled, conservative constitutionalist viewpoint. Apparently, these upstanding citizens are all frivolous and far left-wing in White's estimation. No wonder the GOP keeps losing ground in Pima County.

The Pima County GOP's characterization of use of Founder's cure for an over-reaching Executive as a marginal, left-wing issue only illustrates how out-of-touch with even their own electorate they have become. A swiftly growing minority of their own party members are alarmed by the Bush Administration's abuses of our civil rights and the rule of law, and many are becoming reconciled to position that impeachment is the only way to restore the balance of power in the federal government before what looks likely to be a Democratic President takes power in 2009. Nationally, a strong and growing minority of self-identified Conservatives (33%) and Very Conservatives (28%), and self-identified Republicans (23%), would support impeachment for wiretapping of Americans' telecommunications without a warrant according to Zogby polling. Apparently, a quarter of her own party members are frivolous far left-wingers according to White.

Members of DFA/Tucson would surely welcome (considering that they tried to invite representatives of an anti-impeachment viewpoint to their recent forum, and found no takers) an opportunity to discuss the impeachment issue with leaders of the Republican Party rather than merely engaging the shallow rhetoric and divisive politics that has led the current Administration so badly astray and relegated their party to minority status nationally, and near irrelevance locally.

 

Nancy Young Wright: Second Choice of LD 26, First Choice of CHuckelberrians

UPDATE 12pm: The Board voted 4-1 (Ray Carroll being the dissenter, as he so frequently is) to select Nancy Young Wright as the new State Representative for LD 26. Interestingly, even though Jorgenson got the most support among the PCs of 26 (not to mention Lena's) the Board nominated Nancy immediately, and Ray Carroll couldn't get a second when he suggested that Don deserved an up or down vote on the record before considering Nancy. Nancy is going to file papers to run today, so she will definitely be seeking re-election. She also said that she will be resigning her current job with the county, as she was a direct employee, not a contractor. Don Jorgenson and Cheryl Cage were both in attendance at the Board's meeting and were very supportive of Nancy once the vote confirmed what everyone expected. Don is certainly still running as Nancy's running mate. I don't know whether Cheryl Cage will also run, or if she will return to running the LD 26 campaigns. I will be sitting down with Nancy as soon as her schedule allows to give everyone a feel for her priorities for this and future sessions.

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 Couny Election Integrity Goes Back to the Board of Supervisors

The Pima County Supervisor's regular meeting on January 8th at 9am is swiftly approaching this Tuesday. If election integrity matters to you, you should be there. Discussion of the lawsuit will be one of the very first items on the agenda, so try to be at the Board's Chambers by 9am.

One of the best things you can do is to contact the Supervisor's offices and let them know that is a critical issue for you. Sources near the case indicate a belief that the Board will vote to appeal unless Ann Day decides to vote with Ray Carroll. She should be the target of heaviest lobbying. Ray Carroll is already in support of election integrity; call and thank him for his leadership on this issue.

Ann Day, District 1
(520) 740-2738      

Ramón Valadez, District 2
(520) 740-8126   

Sharon Bronson, District 3
(520) 740-8051      

Ray Carroll, District 4
(520) 740-8094

Richard Elías, Chairman, District 5
(520) 740-8126

The County Attorney has filed an apparently unauthorized notice of appeal, presumably purely on the word of County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry or on the initiative of County Attorney's office itself. Only the Board has the right to make a decision as to whether to appeal the court's ruling, and they haven't yet met and made any decision on the matter. See the Democrat's Motion to Strike (Download Mot_to_Strike.pdf) for more details.

The Democrats have also taken issue with several of Judge Miller's findings of fact as not supported by the testimony, and some of his conclusions of law as erroneous. See Democrats Motion to Amend (Download Mot_to_Amend.pdf) for more details. I will take a closer look at this when and if the County Attorney responds. In my first reading, however, Bill Risner make a powerful case that Judge Miller would be hard-pressed to ignore that the Judge quite simply got several points wrong in his under-advisement opinion.

How To Paint 'A' Mountain White

Now that Democrats have unquestionable control of the Tucson City Council, it is time to take a stand against allowing facile public displays of patriotism to substitute for the real thing.

It is time to end the hijacking of a cherished symbol of community unity and pride inspired by academic and athletic achievement to advertise a false unity behind an unethical, foolish, illegal, and increasingly genocidal occupation.

It is time to stop allowing a vocal and self-righteous minority to shove an enduring symbol of the failed policy in Iraq into the faces of every Tucsonan who doesn't support continuation of the occupation of Iraq.

It is time to stop using public resources to subsidize a controversial political viewpoint.

The city counsel must now gather up their courage and remove the A on the mountain from the field of partisan political play.

The A must be repainted white immediately. And any time public funds or personnel are used to repaint it due to wear or vandalism, it must be painted white.

The city code already requires the A be painted white. We have only to follow the law. No more tacit acquiescence to vandalism, no matter how patriotically inspired it may be.

I have had enough. I'm sure you have had enough. I'm even confident that the members of the City Council and the Mayor have had enough. It's time to call, or walk-in and visit with your council member and your Mayor and let them know that you are sick and tired, and you're not going to take it any more: you don't want a symbol of your city used as a jingoistic advertisement for war; you want the law to be followed; you want your 'A' to be white again.

Let's make this return to normalcy one of the first priorities of the new Council. Let's make the de-politicization of a symbol that is meant to represent our entire community a small local step toward healing this nation of the failed and curdled politics of the Bush era.

Political Corruption Gets a New Name in Lincoln Strategy Group

Link: Lincoln Strategy Group lining up clients fast.

Nathan Sproul, who has worked so hard to make his name synonymous with political corruption here in Arizona, is taking his name off the marquee of his firm in a merger with Arizona Chamber of Commerce lobbyist Jessica Pacheco. The new firm will be called Lincoln Strategy Group.

Isn't that charming? Having dragged his own name through the mud so often that Sproul now basically means mud (with little flecks of venal corruption and illegal rat-fucking mixed in), Nathan is prepared to give the name of the founder of his party the same treatment.

The rumor mill has it that the next name change of Sproul's firm is already in the works. The new name? Wolfram & Hart.