Blog For Arizona

Brad Nelson: Good Fireman, Lousy Fire Chief

by David Safier

If you don't know him, Brad Nelson is the head of Pima County's Elections Department. The quality and accuracy of our elections depend on his work. My experiences with Nelson tell me that our elections are in trouble as long as he's at the helm. He can be described generously as ill suited for the job and less generously as totally incompetent. (Even less generously, though I don't know this to be true, he can be described as someone who has participated in rigging elections and hides his actions behind a show of incompetence.)

I took part in the Saturday audit of the ballots of the recent primary. The ballots came from random precincts in the county. The idea was to count the ballots to see if the number agreed with the number that came from the vote counting machine for each chosen precinct. I watched Nelson in action. More about what I saw after I pause for an analogy.

I think Brad Nelson would make a good fireman. When the alarm sounded at the station, he'd be the first guy to slide down the pole and hop on the fire truck. At the scene, he'd rush into a burning building to pull out your pet dog (and if he abandoned his fire hose to do it, someone else could always take his place). He's the guy you'd see on TV that night, his face covered with soot, a tired grin on his face and a scared puppy in his arms.

But Nelson would make a lousy fire chief. He'd route all the fire alarms to his cell phone. When a call came in, he'd grab a garden hose, call his assistant Mary, hop in his car, speed to the fire and try to put it out himself. When you saw him on TV that night in front of the charred ruins of the house, he'd admit that, yes, it might have been better if he used a real fire hose but he couldn't find one, and a well organized crew of firemen might have done a better job putting out the fire, but there was no time to give each fireman a call, then give them an hour long training lecture, so he decided to try and put the fire out himself. He did the best he could, he'd say. Maybe he'll do better next time.

I was a Democrat working at a table with two Republicans counting ballots (you always have members of both parties to guarantee a fair counting). We were given a sealed bag filled with ballots. It couldn't be opened without breaking the seal -- that's the point. Inside the bag, we were supposed to find a piece of paper with a number written on it, the same number as we found on the seal. If the number on the paper and on the seal agreed, then we could assume the ballots hadn't been tampered with.

We broke the seal, opened the bag and pulled out the piece of paper. The numbers didn't agree. Let me repeat. The piece of paper inside the bag had a different number than the seal. That should be cause for concern, right? For all I know, the bag was opened in the dead of night, some ballots were removed, others were marked and put in their place, and the new seal was put on after the damage was done. Of course, there are perfectly legitimate reasons for the seal to be changed. The original could have gotten broken in transit, for instance. It happens. But for me to be certain the anomaly was legit, I should have seen documentation that explained why the seal was replaced, signed by an elections division official and members of two political parties. (Party observers are supposed to be present at all parts of the election procedures, so they would be available to watch what was going on and sign the document.)

Brad offered no documentation. He said something to the effect that, Well, maybe on election night the seal was broken or someone didn't put on a seal so we had to put on a new one, or something like that. Did he know what happened? No, he didn't, but that was a possibility. He smiled a What-can-you-do? smile and left.

Later that day, I asked Brad if he knew how many other tables had similar problems. He had no idea, he said, and that didn't seem to bother him.

Chain of custody. That's the gold standard for election integrity, just as it is for evidence in a criminal investigation. If there's a break in the chain at any point, the ballots can be tampered with, and from that moment on, there is no way to be certain the ballots in the sealed precinct bag are the same ones the voters filled out.

The Election Integrity group has worked tirelessly (their patience simply amazes me!) to secure Pima County Elections, to make sure every step of the process is monitored and verified. But Brad Nelson, through a combination of carelessness and incompetence (and possibly corruption, though I don't know that's true) has frustrated their attempts at every turn. What I saw Saturday was a small sample of what goes on multiple times at every election Nelson oversees.

We will never -- repeat, never -- have guaranteed fair and accurate elections in Pima County so long as Brad Nelson heads the election process.

Rio Nuevo or Bust

By Michael Bryan

I've been hearing a lot of hostility to Rio Nuevo from conservatives of late. Perhaps much of it is merely conservatives seeing an opening to attack the liberally-dominated Tucson City Council based on the legitimate criticism of how Rio Nuevo funds have been spent so far. Such criticism of implementation is certainly justified, and I have engaged in criticism of the lack of accountability and transparency in how that money is being spent myself, but it is not a reason to attack the funding of Rio Nuevo.

There are two issues here: the program and its implementation. You can support the program (using a Tax Increment Finance district to keep Tucson sales taxes in Tucson for downtown redevelopment) and criticize the implementation (how the City government is handling the planning and funds) without betraying Tucson and Pima County. If fact, by doing this you are trying to improve the program and helping Tucson and Pima County. But if you attack the program, you are attacking the vital interests of southern Arizona.

I worry that local conservative politicians may be tempted to backslide on their support for the continuance of the Rio Nuevo TIF given recent news coverage of how the first $77 million have been spent (or mis-spent). I recent heard Vic Williams, a candidate for the Republican nomination to the House in LD 26, on Emil Franzi's radio program responding to a caller who was attacking Rio Nuevo by allowing that he would be open to cutting off the TIF funds and putting them back in the general fund. I have also heard Jon Paton whispering direly about the possibility of the Maricopa know-nothings acting to kill the TIF. In other words, the "censervatives" may want to take Tucson's tax revenues away from Tucson, leading the Tucson City Council to hurredly commit the money into the future by using the future revenue stream to back new bonds, both to accelerate the spending schedule to build political support and to make it politically more dicey for the know-nothings to pull Rio Nuevo's plug. If "conservative" ire continues to build, it could spell disaster for Tucson.

To those southern Arizona politicians who are tempted to fail to carry their weight in supporting and defending Rio Nuevo I say this: DON'T YOU DARE. By failing to stand up for Rio Nuevo's funding against all comers you will betray your home... and you will betray conservative principles.

How is supporting Rio Nuevo an issue of conservative principles? Conservatives say they are for local control, local government, and making decisions about how to spend our tax money as close to the citizens as possible. I happen to agree with these principles. I don't think they are necessarily conservative (they are merely democratic - note the small 'd'), but few conservatives would hesitate to claim them. Conservatives claim to be for lower taxes and doing more with the taxes we have. Great. Rio Nuevo's financing doesn't raise a single additional cent of taxes; it merely allows Tucson to retain sales taxes collected locally to spend locally on improving Tucson, instead of sending it to the capital for a bunch of other, less accountable politicians to spend. Add to this the fact that whole idea of redeveloping our downtown is to make Tucson a better place to build a business and raise a family, and I don't see how any real conservative could want anything other than for Rio Nuevo to continue and be a huge success. Rio Nuevo is a deeply conservative program.

Southern Arizona voters should make support for the Rio Nuevo program and it's funding an acid test for any politician wanting to hold any office in southern Arizona. And indications are that they already have. Even criticizing the implementation of Rio Nuevo's TIF may have cost Ted Downing a seat in the Arizona Senate in LD 28. In hindsight, his concerns about Rio Nuevo's accounting practices for keeping track of how the money was to be spent, and how much was being spent on consultants, were clearly right on the mark. But for even looking askance the implementation while everyone else was focused on boosterism to get the program reauthorized, Downing was pilloried and his concerns were mischaracterized and his fidelity to Tucson's interests impugned.

Let Downing serve as a warning, conservatives. Criticize the City Council all you want. Call for the heads. Call for better management, oversight, planning, accounting, whatever. But call for, or even intimate that you will do anything but sacrifice your political life to defend the funding of Rio Nuevo, and southern Arizona voters will call for your head.

Vic, I await your comment winding-back your radio faux pas :)

 

Arizona Week in Review

Some of you might have noticed that my posting has been rather slow of late. I hope that some of my fellow bloggers have been able to keep you informed and entertained, but I realize that Arizona political news and opinion has been rather too thin on the ground around here.

When I think about all the great stories in Arizona politics that deserve coverage and/or comment, I shrivel at the thought of all the posts that need to be written in so little time. And I end up not writing them.

So I'm going to take some of the pressure off by not demanding of myself that I write about everything in a separate post, but instead, throw everything that's been buzzing in my bonnet into a single weekly bout of blogorrhea. Sounds delightful, no? Well, then, here we go.

Bee Flees the Hive:

Perhaps the most fun of late is the on-going saga of how Bee is throwing his affiliation with the GOP under the bus: he tried not be photographed with Bush (though everyone knows he's using Bush to fund-raise, so, really, why bother? I guess the same reason we're not allowed to see pictures of dead American troops... some realities are just too harsh for mere citizens).

Furthering the story line is Bee's ads. Two of them so far and neither contains the words "GOP" or "Republican," instead using the line "Independence for a Change." Timmy, that seems rather derivative of and responsive to Giffords' tag "Because Change Can't Wait." Wow, with even conservatives wanting to run as change agents, and eshewing their party's label, it can't be more clear how utterly the GOP has fucked up.

Bee Stings Busy-Bodies:

Bee nixed the idea of an independent bi-partisan look into rule violations by Sen. Jack Harper to stop debate in the Arizona Senate so that the Gay Marriage Referendum could be considered. Standing in the breach to protect members of his caucus from accountability for dir1ty tricks isn't exactly the sort of co-operative, bi-partisan consensus building image that Bee is trying to sell to voters. Looks a lot more like "my party right or wrong" to me.

Endorse This:

It really grates on me to see elected officials taking sides in party primaries. The most irritating are Congressional primaries where Representatives from other districts endorse in a contested primary. Ann Kirkpatrick announced an endorsement from Harry Mitchell, adding to those she's already gotten from Governor Napolitano and Gabby Giffords.

It would annoy my immensely to have these folks stepping in to tell me who should represent my district if I lived in CD 1. It would annoy me were I supporter of another primary candidate. And it strikes me as an overbearing use of political influence on the part of the endorsers to try to determine the outcome of party primaries. Party officials can't be partial in this manner, why should far more visible and influential party members, our officer-holders, be allowed to play this divisive game? It's merely vanity and ambition, and I condemn it.

DiSimone Hits the Road:

Following an arrest on domestic violence, State Representative Mark DiSimone resigned from his office. I keep asking myself, "If Mark were a Republican, would I expect him to resign because of an allegation of domestic violence?" Just an allegation and arrest aren't really enough, in my opinion. A conviction would certainly do the trick. However, if you are a Republican, even a conviction for something as sordid as a DUI apparently isn't enough for Republicans to demand your resignation.

Mark maintains he didn't hit anyone, so why did he resign? Probably he's thinking of the good the Party and that his constituents should have the most effective advocate possible. Just another contrast between the way Democrats and Republicans approach politics and personal responsibility; and another chance for GOPers to demonstrate their double standards - one for us, and one for them.

Buddy, Can You Spare a TIME?:

Jim Nintzel has helped clarify this issue immensely for me by making sure to ask all and sundry for their positions on the TIME initiaitive, which adds a 1 cent sales tax to the state rate to pay for infrastructure. Having heard some of the most informed Democrats in the state express opinions on this, I feel I finally have a position on the matter.

I read the initiative (PDF) a few months ago (which is more than most will do) and my immediate reaction was "Great! But why a sales tax?" In Arizona we already have a high sales tax rate and are overly dependent on this cyclical revenue sources, which is why we have state revenue booms and busts that we try to even out with an inadequately-sized rainy-day fund (thank the GOP for cutting the fund's size). So, making our infrastructural development even more dependent on such a cyclical source strikes me as bad planning, and the regressive nature of sales taxes makes it bad policy, in my opinion.

Of course, I recognize the political constraints that shaped the TIME, but I don't think supporting something because their isn't currently a better option is politically useful: better to work to create better options than moot the issue by putting into place something that while useful, if unfair and far less than optimal. That's why I'm an idealist and critic, and not a politician. I don't get paid to compromise.

Those Democrats who support TIME (and only RINOs support it, because, you know, it's a tax!) make the bold claim that if you oppose it for the reasons I've given, you have to propose where we're going to get billions for infrastructure. No I don't. That's bullshit.

How about this: Democrats take over the State Legislature and pass some indexed gas taxes, some reasonable property taxes and impact fee allowances, and get rid of a whole bunch of corporate welfare, and we use that money to fund our infrastructure? Why isn't that a good plan? It's certainly a better plan that continuing to put the cost of government and investments for our future on the backs of the poorest and middle-class Arizonans.

The TIME would probably accomplish some good by addressing Arizona's worst infrastructural deficits (which Republicans have allowed to accumulate with their mania against taxes) but only at the cost of making Arizona's financial situation far more inequitable, and locking that inequity into the system for another generation. Better to fight to take back the government and fund infrastructure equitably, than just give up and allow the GOP to screw another generation with their misguided and plutocratic ideology. Politics isn't just the art of the possible, at it's best, it's also the art of the improbable. TIME is well intentioned, but it accepts the merely probable by playing by a set of political rules and constraints that are anti-theatrical to progressive governance. I can't support that.

Obamazona?:

Could Arizona become a battleground state in the Presidential election? With some polling putting Obama within single digits to McBush in the state, with a rich vein of independents and undecideds remaining to court, it is not outside the realm of possibility. With so much money being available to Obama, a few million to go on the air in Arizona and potentially embarrass McBush seems like a bargain. We will almost certainly get a few field organizers on the ground in AZ; maybe we'll even get a few events on a candidate swing through the state. With lots of new registrations and the Obama camapign energizing low-efficacy voters throughout the primary season, it seems that the traditional presidential campaign map may be changing. The very strong popularity of Obama in the Hispanic community (66% Obama, 23% McBush, 11% Undecided) could be a factor in pushing several Southwestern states, including AZ, into the blue this season.

Poor Joe:

Pity poor Maricopa County SheriffJoe Arpiao. Beaten in pinata-effigy by protesters at a book signing, his head came off and with carried about a bit by Pima County Legal Defender Isabel Garcia (full disclosure: Isabel used to be my boss). The rightwing rant radio and usual bug-eating-crazy suspects, got a hold of that and had a field day: calling for Isabel's firing by the Pima County Board, bar discipline, actual beheading... whatev.

Isabel and her pals have a perfect right to peacefully protest any way they like. What stikes me is 1) the Right's hypocritcal attack on free speech, and 2) the Right's quick retreat into victimhood.

The Right loves free speech: they hide their worst hate-speech behind it constantly. But let a liberal step out of line and express a controversial view and suddenly they boycott, and contact your boss to try to get you fired. No consequence they can possibly try to inflict, including a good beating, is out of bounds when a liberal says something the right doesn't like. Remember the Dixie Chicks? The digital brownshirts are on patrol. Don't ever forget which side of the political spectrum is constantly attacking that bulwark of the First Amendment, the ACLU.

The one area where I think Isabel and her friends made a mistake was providing an opportunity for Joe and his ractist buddies and supporters to play the victim. Reading the right wing coverage, if you didn't know the story intimately, you might think that Isabel's young friends had taken a stick to Sheriff Joe's very own carcass. Isabel and her krewe didn't attack Joe, they hit a pinata. But in making this symbolic gesture, they allowed Joe and the racists who stand with him to play the victim. There is nothing the Right adores more than the opportunity to play the victim.

It's inherent in the conservative psyche that they are constantly under attack and withstanding seige by the forces of chaos and corruption, i.e. everyone else. They thrive on their embattlement. They are always the victim, relatiating against the aggressors in their own minds: never attacking or acting as the oppressor, but merely the downtrodden defending themselves against outrageous and unjustified attacks. Even the shock-jock who promoted this story heavily, Jon Justice, is now taking the posture of victim in defense of his jack-ass antics.

This is why it is always a mistake to play into the Right's favorite narrative. Give them the slightest pretext to cast themselves and victims and martyrs, and they will riff on that theme for all they are worth. In the end, Isabel's protest probably generated a lot more sympathy and solidarity among Joe's supporters than awareness of Joe's abuses of the community he's supposed to protect. As such, it may have stregthened Joe's political support rather than undermined it, contrary to the protest's intent.

Supervisorial Smack Talk

There has been a report here already about the Nucleus Club meeting featuring the Democratic primary candidates for Supervisorial Districts 2 and 3, and I know the Weekly will be doing a quasi-live blog of the event, so I am not going to rehash everything. I am grateful and glad to see the Weekly doing a bang-up job of covering more of these local political events in more depth. Big kudos to big Jimmy Nintz' and his bloggin' crew of young hotties over at the Weekly's Scramblewatch. They are a welcome addition to the local blog-swarm.

The turnout for Nucleus was huge, clearly indicating deep interest in this race with many Dem activists, journos, and office-holders and their staffs were in attendance. I'm sure the video of the whole event will be available soon (if not already), as the Latas krewe were filming.

The speeches and positions taken were mostly not unexpected, but there were some surprises.

The first result is Bronson revealed her brilliant strategy to defeat Branch-Gilby: paint her as unreasonably adversarial and partisan, and deny that herself ever opposed election transparency - and failing that, blame everything on the lawyers and the Secretary of State.

After her and Valadez's utter failure to stand up to the County Administration on Election Integrity on behalf of their own party, perhaps a little adversarial attitude is exactly what's needed. In any case, Bronson's gambit certainly didn't get much traction in the room. Bronson failed utterly to stop the bleeding. She just made her self-inflicted wounds deeper.

Branch-Gilby hammered at the themes of transparency, accountability, and open government, pointing out that the lack of public input on everything from the budget and planning to elections has left the Board politically isolated, wrong-footed on the issues, and overly dependent on the advice of a far from impartial administrative staff.

 

Branch-Gilby was undoubtedly the big winner of the evening. She was utterly convincing, supervisorial, and appealing. Bronson came off as defensive, rude, and out-of-touch with her party. She was the big loser of the evening.

Gratuitous and unwelcome advice to Bronson: avoid being in the same room as Branch-Gilby from here on out - you are out-classed.

The other losers of the evening had to be State Representative Tom Prezelski and South Tucson Mayor (and Valadez staffer) Jennifer Eckstrom. Oddly missing from Nintz's "live blog" account is the question Tom posed to the panel.

During QandA Tom rose to make his big contribution for the evening. He asked whether the candidates would pledge that a Democrat would be elected Chairman of the Board if Democrats retained a majority on the Board. His obvious implication being that Branch-Gilby and/or Robuck made a deal with Ray Carrol to make Ray the Chairman if they are elected.

This is a rehash of the rumor (I guess we can tell who's spreading that one now...) that Ray Carrol recruited Branch-Gilby and Robuck to challenge the incumbents in the primary as a means of overthrowing the Board and making himself Chairman. Nintz even fans the flames of this canard by claiming in his "live blog" of the event that Carrol is "is using Robuck and Branch-Gilby as his swords of vengeance against the board’s Democratic majority." That's utter and unadulterated bullshit.

This sort of bullshit may be meat and potatoes to a jaundiced journalist, but it should be anathema to a party loyalist like Tom. It's uncomfortably like the Republican strategy of claiming that Democrats are in league with the terrorists or want to surrender to them. It's pure scare tactic and it's low.

Worse, it implies that Branch-Gilby, who has done as much as Tom Prezelski for the Democratic Party locally, is willing to serve as some sort of patsy or stalking horse for Republicans. That is just unworthy for a guy in Tom's position to imply.

I have a lot of respect for Tom. He's a great public servant and has done some great things in the Lege, and I fully understand the strength and origin of his loyalties to the Eckstroms - and thus by transative property to Valadez, but I question his strategy of so transparently attempting to smear fellow Dems, especially one as staunch, principled, and widely respected as Branch-Gilby. If he thinks making such patently sophomoric and ham-fisted attacks on her character and motives is going to get any traction among local Democrats, he needs to think again. All he's doing is undermining his own credibility in the Party, which is a dangerous thing to do for a guy facing a crowded primary.

Most of Tom's ire, no doubt, is reserved for Bob Robuck, who is challenging his pal and Eckerstrom family policial scion, Ramon Valadez. Robuck pointed out that Jennifer Eckstrom serves simultaneously as the elected Mayor of South Tucson and as a paid member of Ramon Valadez's staff. Robuck thinks that could be a serious conflict of interest. That's not a wild-eyed accusation - his view has merit. There is clearly the appearance that South Tucson could get favored treatment from the County as a result of the arrangement. Whether there actually has been any improper favoritism shown South Tucson as a result is an open question: one that Robuck suggests has an answer with his accusation that the County has been repairing roads in South Tucson that it shouldn't be responsible for. Such an arrangement might suit the people of South Tucson, but Ramon's constituents outside of South Tucson might be troubled by it. Eckstrom and Prezelski denied that accuracy of Robuck's account. I don't know which of them is right.

The Valadez/Eckstrom claque in the corner of the room didn't like Robuck's temerity in bringing the whole subject up at all, and Tom decided to take the soccer hooligan approach to make his rebuttal. When Robuck pointed out the possible conflict, Tom loudly told Jennifer to "kick his ass!" and yelled at Robuck to "sit down!" Jennifer disingenuously reframed Robuck's point, suggesting that he must mean that "nobody in District 2 can work in Valadez's office?" That was so lame, you could actually hear the room cringing at her sad rejoinder. So much for Jennifer kicking Robuck's ass.

This primary is leaving many with feelings of acrimony, and putting up the backs of incumbents who are stewing that anyone would dare question their motives or competence. As rumors of backroom deals with Ray Carrol are flogged by the incumbent's backers, and charges of conflict of interest, lack of spine, delegation of leadership to Chuckelberry batter the incumbents, this primary promises to be a doozy.

Perhaps a good airing of the dirty laundry is just what is needed to educate the voters and bring incumbents (if they retain their positions) back into line with their own party's will. As I noted to a table-mate as the evening took a nasty turn and she lamented the bitterness of the accusations, you have to drain the pus before a wound will heal.

Witness Swears Under Oath That Bryan Crane Admitted to Rigging RTA Election at Direction of Election Division Leaders

A witness swears under oath that Bryan Crane, the computer operator in the Pima Elections Division, admitted in January of this year to rigging the RTA at the behest of Elections Division leadership. Apparently Mr. Crane was concerned about getting hung out to dry by his higher-ups for the crime. Expect denials from Pima County Administration, and a frenzied attempt to discredit the affiant.

Click for a larger view of the affidavit:

Pima County Board of Supervisors Finally Gives Up Trying to Keep Citizens From Verifying Our Votes

The Pima County Board of Supervisors took public comments before adjourning to an executive session to discuss the lawsuit filed by the Pima County Democratic Party against the Board for electronic election data files. 

Vince Rabago, chair of the Pima County Democratic Party, recommended that the board not continue this lawsuit with an appeal.  Several members of the public also spoke, including members of the election integrity organization AUDIT AZ and primary challengers Donna Branch-Gilby (D) and Barney Brenner (R) who are running against Sharon Bronson in Supervisor District 3, and Brad Roach (R) who is running for County Attorney against Barbara LaWall.

 

When the Board returned from executive session, they voted on the four matters scheduled for executive session.  For each of the first three matters, the county attorney made a recommendation and a supervisor moved to "follow the county attorney's recommendation."

 

On the final matter, the Democratic Party lawsuit, the county attorney simply stated the posture of the case in court without stating his recommendation for the record.  Sharon Bronson moved to simply "not file an appeal" and the Board approved the motion on a 5-0 vote. 

The Board also ordered that the electronic data files be hash marked for verification purposes, and released to the Democratic Party on June 9, 2008.

 

After the vote, Supervisor Ray Carroll told this reporter that he could not reveal what was discussed in executive session, but he would describe the tone.  Carroll said the supervisors were "frothing" and that Sharon Bronson was "vitriolic" in her comments to him.  Carroll said he thought Sharon lost it and that Donna Branch-Gilby must be getting to her.

 

Donna Branch-Gilby filed her petitions on Monday with over 1,500 signatures submitted.

 

The County had previously stipulated to an order in the first part of this case.  Party observers will be allowed to open and review ballot boxes for the summary reports of early voting totals at issue in that case on June 25, 2008 under Court supervision.

Read Gary Duffey's coverage at the Tucson Citizen.

RIP: TPD Officer Hite

Tucson Police Officer Erik Hite succumbed to injuries he sustained in the line of duty. His death is a tragic reminder of the risks our police officers, and other first responders take every day to keep our communities and our families safe.

The past few years have unfortunately numbed many to such tragedies. When someone pays the ultimate price of service right here in our community, we are all reminded of the honor due all who serve, and the sacrifices they and their families make on our behalf.

The TPOA has set up a fund, which is accepting public donations, to help Officer Hite's family:

TPOA/Officer Erik Hite Benefit Fund
Wells Fargo Bank, account #2475164071

You don't actually need the account number to make a donation, just say it's for Officer Hite's Family. You can stop in at any local Wells Fargo branch to make a donation. Please spread the word.

Who's Hanging with Ramon Valadez?

Ramon Valadez is having a kick-off fund-raiser. Appropriately enough at the Rio Nuevo Business Plaza (developed by Diamond Ventures).

In case that small type listing the hosts is hard to read, and maybe those names aren't so familiar to Democrats in our community, here they are:

Bill Estes III (R, SD 4) of The Estes Co., a longtime residential developer in the Tucson market

David Goldstein (O, SD 1), President of Diamond Ventures

Mike Grassinger (O, SD 4), Principal of The Planning Center

David Greenberg (O, SD 1), President, DR Horton Homes

Robert Iannarino (R, SD 1), Real Estate Developer/Engineer, Diamond Ventures

Chris Kemmerly (R, SD 1) CEO Kemmerly Homes

Rob Longaker (O, SD 1), WLB Group

Ken Perry (R, SD 1), Principal and Vice-President of Land Development, Engineering and Environmental Consultants, Inc.

Michael Racy (R, SD 1), lobbyist, Racy Associates (clients include Diamond Ventures and Tucson Airport Authority)

Keri Silvyn (D, SD 1), Attorney, Lewis & Roca, in Real Estate practice representing developers, including Diamond Ventures.

Priscilla Storm (R, SD 3), vice president for public policy and community planning, Diamond Ventures.

John Take, managing principal at Stantec, which is designing a wastewater treatment plant in Marana.

Mark Taylor, Westland Resources

Alice Templeton (D, SD 2), Project Manager, Stantec Consulting

Corey Thompson (R, SD 4), Engineer, Stantec Consulting

Jim Tress (O, SD 1), Principal, Westland Resources

Richard Underwood (R, SD 1), Owner, AAA Landscaping

Vince Vasquez (R, SD 4), Diamond Ventures

These are the folks hosting Ramon's fund-raiser. All developers, lobbyists, lawyers and consultants for developers. Only two are even Democrats, and only one even lives in Ramon's district. So, I guess that who really supports Ramon. And who Ramon really represents.

Of course, I suppose he could still prove me wrong... but I'm not holding my breath.

Al Melvin Throws Down in Pima County

"It's like Hitler just invaded France," said a source in the moderate wing of the Pima County Republican Party of Joe Higgin's likely primary challenge of Ann Day for Supervisor in District 1.

That's not just Godwin's law in effect; my source only meant that a war that everyone knew was coming, and that many have been reluctant to fight, had finally arrived.

The war analogies kept coming, "what has been a cold war in the Party just went hot," said my deep throat.

As my source sees it, Al Melvin has just declared war on the establishment, pro-business, moderate Republicans with Higgin's entry into the race. Higgin is understood among Republican circles to be merely a stalking horse for Melvin with no hope of actually winning, but plenty of potential to make some joyful noise.

The newly declared war is for control of the Republican Party in Pima County. The establishment has been suffering the guerrilla attacks of the uber-conservatives for years now—taunting RINO hunts, primary challenges, a burgeoning far-right blog swarm, Graf's campaign against Kolbe and eventual nomination upon his retirement (and Kolbe's and the RNC's refusal to support that GOP nominee against a Democrat)—have all been skirmishes in the smoldering range war for the soul of the GOP in Pima and Arizona, more broadly.

Melvin's recruiting a movement conservative to challenge a GOP institution like Day was the last straw—or, more aptly, the assassin's bullet that set off a total war.

But perhaps Melvin has finally overplayed his hand. While Melvin is obviously hoping that a primary contest in the overlapping Supervisory District 1 will help stir his own base in his primary fight for Arizona Senate in LD 26 against moderate Republican Pete Hershberger, it could also finally prompt the establishment into a full scale counter-assault that could undermine Republican efforts to retake lost ground in LD 26.

If the GOP's civil war starts getting major press coverage, which a primary against Day is almost certain to attract, it could make what has been a quiet internal vendetta into a fully-fledged public feud. That could possibly distract or disgruntle voters in unrelated races where there is no primary challenge, like Bee's bid to retake CD 8 for the GOP.

Back to the military analogies: it's hard to take your objective without strategic unity of force. The Republican party nationally, state-wide, and now locally, is more divided against itself than it has been in recent memory as the cresting force of movement conservatism smashes into an establishment that has been willing to tolerate them only so long as they were winning elections.

And the movement conservatives haven't been winning, prompting movement conservatives to attack moderates even more vociferously in a zealous attempt at ritual purification of the Party to bring back the favor of the electoral gods. In reality, America is just fed up with the discredited anti-government politics of the far Right, even as anti-government dogma has become unquestionable in the GOP.

Voters' disgust plus a bewildering and vicious civil war in the Republican Party adds up to strategic advantage for Democrats at all levels. Most especially, Melvin's sneak attack on Ann Day (and by proxy the establishment of the Pima GOP) bodes well for the merry band of Democrats seeking to hold gains in LD 26.

Mule Train Mail: Mickey Duniho Writes an Open Letter to C. Huckelberry on Elections Security

Mr. Huckelberry:

I got wind of your latest memo on election security [pdf download] by reading about it in a Tucson Citizen article. Given that you mentioned my name in the memo, I would have expected to receive a courtesy copy of the memo. Maybe my copy went astray.

On page 14 of your memo you said that the Pima County Democratic Party Election Integrity Committee “has failed to provide a number of items that it agreed to provide in response to County requests”, including a copy of an election integrity manual that I drafted for the party. [Download ei_manualcomplete.doc ]

I don’t know about requests to the committee, but I provided a copy of the draft manual to the County as part of my deposition in November 2007. I think the manual was an exhibit at the trial in December 2007. John Moffatt was present at the November 2007 deposition, so I assumed that he got a copy of the manual at that time. To avoid having your copy of the manual get lost again in the County bureaucracy, I am sending it directly to you as an attachment to this email. I want to point out that this is a draft that has not yet been officially adopted by any part of the Arizona Democratic Party.

Your memo contains a number of good ideas for improving election integrity in Pima County, particularly your recommendations to improve procedures for chain-of-custody control of ballots, doubling the number of ballots to be hand counted, and adding the hand-count audit process to non-partisan elections. If you would also require sorting early ballots by precinct before hand counting them, it would greatly improve your recommended hand-count process.

Unfortunately, doubling the number of early ballots hand counted in the recent Presidential primary would not be an improvement. There were no Democratic ballots included in the hand count audit and a ridiculously minuscule number of Republican early ballots: 1 batch of the four percent of the ballots that had been set aside for hand counting. When I complained about this omission to Brad Nelson, he claimed he was following the Secretary of State’s manual. He did not read the manual correctly, and the writer of the manual did not read the statute (ARS 16.602.C.3) correctly. I hope that you will remedy this defect in future elections.

I am also attaching a file containing the 22 suggestions I offered to you in December 2007 in response to your call for public comment on election integrity. You recommended in your memo adopting two of these suggestions and part of a third. I have highlighted the adopted suggestions in green and key parts of the other suggestions in yellow. I hope you will reconsider your omission. All of these ideas are already operational procedures in Tucson City elections and would be excellent improvements to the County’s procedures.

Mule Train Mail: Mickey Duniho on the Hand County Audits in Pima County

by Mickey Duniho

When SB1557 was first passed in 2006, Pima County’s attorney told the Board of Supervisors that it would be illegal for them to do a hand-count of the September Primary Election because the new law had not been completely approved by the US Justice Department. Despite a last-minute plea the day before the primary election, the Board of Supervisors voted not to do a hand count audit of that election.

Two days after the primary, we discovered that Maricopa County was doing a hand count audit of their primary on an informal basis, in anticipation of the approval by the US Justice Department of the new law. As events developed, it became obvious that Pima County’s Elections Department was aware of the Maricopa hand count at the time that they told us they could not do it. We also learned that Pima County had been doing hand counts of a single precinct in every election for the past twelve years, with the full approval of the County Attorney’s office.

Under pressure from the people, the Pima County Board of Supervisors finally agreed to do an informal hand count. When they did the count, they delivered to the volunteer counters stacks of ballots that had been removed from their secured containers and neatly stacked up. This violated chain-of-custody rules for the hand count. They also interpreted the law to require the counting of only one race in each precinct, violating the clear wording in the law. Their lawyer backed them up on this erroneous interpretation.

During the period between the primary and the general elections, Bill Risner proposed asking a judge to clarify the meaning of the law. The County attorney immediately caved to our interpretation of the law: counting four races in each precinct as stated in the law.

In November 2006, the Pima Election Director and his lawyer tried to go back on their agreement and interpret the law to allow a single race per precinct hand count, but we then had a memo signed by Huckelberry saying that they would adopt the four races per precinct interpretation. When we showed them the memo, they again caved and agreed to count four races per precinct.

In the 2008 Presidential Preference Primary (PPE), Pima County first announced that they would delay scanning early ballots until Election Day so that they could sort the ballots before scanning them. Then they announced that they would start scanning ballots on Sunday before the election. Then they announced that they would start scanning early ballots on Election Day. We sent observers to the central count facility on Election Day morning, and nothing happened all day. When I asked Bryan Crane about this around 6 pm on Election Day, he said no one had told him to scan any ballots on Election Day.

In the evening of PPE Election Day, Bryan announced that they would select the batches for the early ballot hand count audit and scan them that evening and then count the rest of the early ballots starting the next day. We randomly selected batches of ballots to be scanned and hand counted in the amount of four percent of the expected number of early ballots. These were scanned and set aside. The next day, no early ballots were scanned. Only one of the eight batches selected was hand counted – with Brad Nelson claiming that that batch was far in excess of one percent of the early ballots scanned before the close of polls on Election Day. But the law says that one percent of the early ballots RECEIVED by the close of polls on Election Day will be hand counted.

When the hand count of ballots began, Brad Nelson announced that they would only count one of the two presidential races, in accordance with the new Secretary of State Procedures Manual. The law says all the presidential preference races are to be counted, not just one, and the new procedures manual is contrary to the law. The hand count of early ballots counted approximately one sixth of one percent of the early ballots received – one sixth of the number that should have been counted. Also, since the “randomly selected” ballots were removed from the boxes and counted separately from the rest of the early ballots, their selection was no longer random relative to the rest of the ballots.

It is apparent that Pima County’s Elections Director will continue to game the system whenever he has the chance, and will not follow the law unless forced by legal pressure. In every election since the hand count audit law was enacted, he has tried first one thing and then another to avoid following the clear language of the law.

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

Fact Checking John Munger

Posted by: AZBlueMeanie

How many readers actually watch the monthly "Face Off" segment between John Munger and Vince Rabago on Arizona Illustrated on KUAT?  Yeah, that's what I thought.  Just a handful of political junkies.  In case you missed the April segment, you can catch it on line at http://tv.azpm.org/kuat/segments/2008/4/14/kuat-the-face-off/

I feel oddly compelled to watch Arizona Illustrated just to see how my tax dollars are at work at PBS.  I am also curious to see what the legendary host Bill Buckmaster deems to be the most important political topics of the day.  I am often disappointed.

It has become difficult to watch the "Face Off" segment because of the disingenuous responses of John Munger and the physically hyperactive antics he engages in while ticking off the GOP talking points of the day that he has barely memorized well enough to do the segment.  Sometimes it looks as if his head is going to explode when he really gets agitated.  Calm down and take a deep breath, John.  You are demonstrating to the viewers that you lack the right temperament and emotional stability to serve as our next governor.

Munger habitually ticks off the GOP talking points of the day and self-proclaims them to be "just the facts."  Since no one knows in advance what wild-eyed craziness Munger is going to say before he actually says it, both Bill Buckmaster and Vince Rabago are at a disadvantage to challenge him on his alleged "facts" in real time. Munger's antics have undermined the intended purpose of the "Face Off" segment, i.e., a thoughtful and intelligent discussion of the political issues of the day.  The viewers are left misled or confused by the bogus "facts" cited in the disingenuous responses of Munger.

So as a public service to the political junkies who actually watch the "Face Off" segment, I will endeavor to provide you with a fact check of John Munger after each monthly segment.

Let's go to the video... 

The Star Fosters Discussion on Tucson's Future Growth

The Arizona Daily Star has recently filled a real vacuum in local civil society by encouraging Tucsonans to take a closer look at what kind of place they want to live in the future. I have quibbles, of course, but they are to be commended for acting as a catalyst and resource for a community faced with some serious choices. There are deep divisions about our future course between those who seek to manage growth (either more or less) and those who believe the facts indicate that we are far past their point where we can just grow smarter, we need to stop growing.

The Star certainly provided some interesting raw data to chew on from their survey earlier this month. Admittedly, some of the questions were intolerably leading and biased, or just plain dopey. But there is some gold in there. I found some insights into Tucsonans' attitudes toward water, transportation, and development.

Read more about what I see—and failed to see—in the data...

The Cost of Spring Training Baseball in Tucson

Any time a wealthy special interest wants the help of local politicians to pick the tax-payer's pockets, they'll seek to justify it by touting the wonderful economic impact their conspiracy will have on the community. The standard method is a figure out a multiplier reflecting how the stolen money will ramify through the community. Then figure out all sorts of tenuous possible impacts that the project, or the lack of it, could have on the local community. Brew it all up and put it in a glossy flier, and you have a prospectus for bilking the taxpayers.

Thus a $10 or $20 million dollar 'gift' to the special interest will be sold as having ultimately a $31 million impact on the economy. Wow! We get 31 million of economic activity in exchange for tolerating a theft of just $20 million? What a deal!

The unspoken assumption is, of course, that there isn't an opportunity cost. That there aren't programs and policies which that money could have financed that would have an even greater economic impact, or even be better used on non-economic values and priorities. Simply put, what else would $20 million buy and what could we have spent it on instead of... baseball?

This is the standard grift being run on taxpayers by supporters of spring training seeking to shake down Pima County for '$10 to $20 million' in improvements to local baseball facilities. The claimed impact of the spring training is claimed to be (you guessed it) $31 million on the local economy by a recent, and despicably uncritical, piece in the Star.

In the United States, the total profit of professional sports is almost exactly equal to the amount to tax preferments and subsidies that industry receives. Since their existence as profitable enterprises depends on it, the professional sports industry has become very, very good at rent-seeking, and pedaling it to the public and their officials as a public good.

The economic benefit isn't their only appeal, however, the mouthpieces for the baseball industry would have you believe that Tucson would be psychologically crippled if MLB leaves town, and other towns will despise us and call us names. Well, that's not exactly what they claim, but it's not far off.

I sure hope our Pima County Supervisors put a little more critical thought into the decision before actually forking over any taxpayer money to this purpose. They need to have a lot better reason than a sense of nostalgia for baseball, as Pima County Supervisor Ramon Valadez expresses in the article. Nor is a 'surge' in public interest, indicated by a 13.7% increase in attendance at spring training games, which Valadez also cites, a good reason to spend the money.

I count 29 events on the Tucson spring training schedule for 2007, if you combine double-headers into a single event. With a total attendance at all games of just over 270K (even with that 'surge' Valadez says we must maintain), that might equate with as few as 10K real fans regularly attending these events in Tucson. If Pima County ponied up $20 million for the facilities improvements MLB is demanding, that's about $2,000 per fan. Good entertainment deal? For those fans, you bet! For the rest of us and for Tucson as a whole? Not so much.

What the MLB boosters don't address, of course, is the opportunity cost of investing public money in baseball facilities while crying needs during an economic down-turn go wanting. I can think of a dozen things that money could be used for that have as much, or more, economic impact in Pima County (including just giving it away!) and dozens more that would be a better use of public funds than tarting up some facilities for fickle suitors like the MLB boys. How about you? Can you think of a better way to spend $10 to $20 million of taxpayer funds?

Buy your own goddamn stadiums, boys. They aren't public assets, they are rich boys toys and the tools of corruption capitalists for extracting wealth from the communities that support them. You want to leave town for greener pastures? Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

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.

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.

Election Integrity Issues Spark a Republican Civil War in Pima County

For someone who claims "I don't speak for the Republican Party" Benny White sure has a lot to say about election integrity. Benny is the political wife of Republican Party chairwoman Judy White (herself given to unilateral pronouncements as to what is legitimate or illegitimate subjects for political discourse). Benny was appointed to the Pima County Logic and Accuracy Committee, which oversees the pre-election testing of voting equipment, and he has an opinion as to how elections should be administered in Pima County, and how they should not be.

There have been some recent murmurings about the Board of Supervisors yanking the Elections Division away from direct supervision by County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry and placing it under the direct supervision of the Board of Supervisors, or even giving it to the Recorder's office. After the raft of embarrassing and troubling revelations about the Elections Divisions' operation in the recent trial and on-going legal tussle, I can certainly understand if some Supervisors have lost confidence in CHuckelberry's supervision of the division.

In response to some of those murmurings, Benny felt the need to speak his mind via email to all and sundry on the subject, and to critique any such plan as potentially making the situation far worse by making elections a direct report to a partisan body (especially one not controlled by his own party, presumably...).

I think Benny's got some excellent points. Maybe, as he suggests, the County Registrar is the natural home of the Election Division, since their functions are so closely coordinated, and that is the way Maricopa County has structured their elections system bureaucracy (though, of course, the argument "that's what Maricopa does" carries much less weight with me than it apparently does with Benny).

Unfortunately, Benny stomped on one particular toe by making a disparaging allegation as to one of our County Supervisor's responsiveness to him on this issue.

Benny opined:

"I was opposed to the release of the database and requested that the Board of Supervisors appeal the legally flawed order from Judge Miller. The Board of Supervisors chose to ignore me. As a matter of fact, Ray Carroll would not even return phone calls to discuss the issue. Well, I am still waiting for the benefits the Democrats promised Judge Miller they would provide." [emphasis added]

Well, that didn't sit too well with Sugar Ray, as it simply wasn't true, according to him. He also didn't much appreciate Benny, who is not a licensed attorney in Arizona, let alone an expert on Arizona elections law (other than perhaps in his own mind), criticizing a well-respected judge like Michael Miller, even if Benny claims he doesn't speak for the Republican Party.

Ray invited Benny to keep the Carroll name out of his damn mouth, thank you very much. He made it very clear that he didn't appreciate being talked about in such a manner, nor that Benny should presume to have any authority to speak for the Republican Party on this matter, despite his rather disingenuous disclaimer to the contrary.

I don't know if the source of Ray's annoyance is just Benny's casual smear on Ray's reputation, or if Ray also doesn't appreciate any challenge for leadership on election integrity within the Pima Republican Party that some might imagine Chairperson White's wife speaking up on the issue implies. In either case, Ray made it very clear that he's more than willing to take the case to the grassroots and let the PCs decide who should be leading the Pima County party, if the Whites don't step off.

Them's fightin' words, as they say. Ray is clearly sending a shot across Benny's, and by extension his husband Judy's bow. If Judy and Benny don't trim their sails, Ray seems quite ready to un-mast them, or put one below the waterline.

Asked if he had anything nice to say about the Whites, Ray deadpanned, "They're not the Clintons."

Massive Victories in Oro Valley!

DANKWERTH, HELEN		3021	14.79%
GARNER, BILL		5091	24.92%
GILLASPIE, BARRY		3246	15.89%
LATAS, SALETTE		5400	26.43%
PARISH, TERRY		3599	17.62%

Latas and Garner are elected outright in the primary with this result, an unprecedented occurrence and a true mandate from voters for Latas and Garner. Dankwerth's showing sends her back to the dugout in shame. Incumbents Gillaspie and Parish are left playing musical chairs for the remaining seat.

When I first spoke to Salette about her campaign almost a year ago now, she told me that her vote target was 5,500 votes. It was more than any Oro Valley candidate had ever gotten. I thought she was overly optimistic—especially given the strong Republican advantage—but she damn near hit her wildly-ambitious target.

I asked Latas what her first priority will be in her new office. She didn't hesitate: she said she's going to be hitting the books hard to learn the city charter and rules backwards and forwards so that she can stop the sloppy and anti-democratic practices of the current Mayor and Council. She's attends the meetings all the time and has been repeatedly stunned and sickened by the blatant disregard for and ignorance of the rules she observes. Her top priority is to insist on proper order, adherence to the rules, and making sure the public isn't shut out of running their city any longer.

I hope that the Tucson-area major media will give this outcome the attention it deserves. This isn't an just an election; Latas and Garner have pulled off a revolution by electing a Democrat and an Independent to the Council in a more the 2 to 1 Republican jurisdiction. Their election demonstrates the power and resonance of the anti-tax farming agenda that Salette Latas pushed to the top of voter's priorities with her canny and long-term campaign plan.

I fully expect to be disappointed by how the media covers this election, however. For a front-line, on-the-barricades view of developments, make sure to stop by the LOVE blog. I've already extended an invitation to Latas and Garner to sit down and talk about the issues and their campaigns in a pod-cast. I have a strong suspicion that they'll be taking me up on the offer, so stay tuned...

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...