Maricopa County Attorney, Andrew Thomas, filed two legal challenges today against the Board of Supervisors in regard to the Boards’ recent decision to remove Thomas as legal counsel to the Board on civil suits against the county.

Thomas also named Maricopa County Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, as co-plaintiff in the suit.

Sonoran Alliance received the following press release from MCAO spokesman, Michael Scerbo:

The County Attorney’s Office has filed two lawsuits today, one in which the Sheriff’s Office is a co-plaintiff, as to complaints related to recent activities by the Board of Supervisors. Copies are attached.

The County Attorney’s Office has also responded to the letter by attorney Thomas Irvine, dated 12/26/08, which was provided to some of the news media last week. The County Attorney’s Office is treating this document as privileged because it was sent to the Board of Supervisors and the acting county manager. For a copy you would need to contact the Board of Supervisors or acting county manager and request that they release it to you.

Here are the attached documents:

MCAO Declaratory Complaint
MCAO Petition

I was stunned by the statements made by Illinois Congressman Bobby Rush at the press conference conducted by embittered and disgraced Governor Rod Blagojevich. During the press conference, in which Blagojevich named Roland Burris to replace Barack Obama, Rush arose from the audience and injected a statement. Congressman Rush made the following comments:

There are no African-Americans in the U.S. Senate. And I don’t think any U.S. senator who’s sitting in the Senate right now wants to go on record to deny one African-American from being seated in the U.S. Senate

I would ask you to not hang or lynch the appointee as you try to castigate the appointer and separate the appointee from the appointer.

Don’t misunderstand me. Roland Burris is probably highly qualified to fill this vacancy but am I missing something? I was under the impression that the election of Barack Obama put the politics of race behind us. Language like this only seems to reignite issues of race.

Sonoran Alliance is excited to welcome to the Arizona blog scene, Noble Thinking.

If you know anyone or anything about politics in Arizona, you’ll know the name of this blog is derived from none other than Sean Noble, the former Chief of Staff to Congressman John Shadegg.

Sean knows more about Arizona politics and the machinations of campaigns better than anyone I know and is well respected amongst political colleagues.

We look forward to reading Sean’s blog and hope you will also make it part of your daily required reading list.

Looks like Detroit’s auto teams are not the only teams in decline.

The Detroit Lions finished their season 0-16 today losing to the Green Bay Packers, 31-21, and making it the only NFL team to lose the greatest number of games in a season. They have also been outscored 551-281.

What this says about Detroit is only symbolic but it may inspire the owner of the Lions to ask Congress for a bailout.

On behalf of the writers of Sonoran Alliance, we want to wish you a Merry Christmas! May God richly bless you and yours during this holy of times.

The feud between the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office and Board of Supervisors is really heating up.

Today, the full Board of Supervisors voted to break with statute and hire outside counsel on civil matters instead of using the County Attorney’s Office as required by state statute. In a unanimous vote, the Board decided to direct the County Manager’s Office to hire outside legal counsel. This allows County Manager David Smith to hire former County Attorney Rick Romley as legal counsel on county civil matters. (Neither the Special Meeting agenda nor the meeting results were available online via the Clerk of the Board’s website.)

Today’s action appears to fly in the face of Arizona Revised Statutes under Title 11, Chapter 3, Article 6. According to section 532,A:

A. The county attorney is the public prosecutor of the county and shall:

4. Draw indictments and informations, defend actions brought against the county and prosecute actions to recover recognizances forfeited in courts of record and actions for recovery of debts, fines, penalties and forfeitures accruing to the state or county.

and

7. When required, give a written opinion to county officers on matters relating to the duties of their offices.

and

9. Act as the legal advisor to the board of supervisors, attend its meetings and oppose claims against the county which the county attorney deems unjust or illegal.

So why would the Board of Supervisors vote to break state law?

It’s no secret that Romley despises Andrew Thomas, his immediate successor and even actively campaigned for Thomas’ oppenent, Tim Nelson, in the General Election. (Nelson is the former ACLU lawyer who worked for Governor Napolitano.)

During the meeting, Romley argued that the Board of Supervisors have the ability to strip the County Attorney of any decision making power regarding lawsuits against Maricopa County. Yet to be determined is whether or not the Board will also disallow the County Attorney’s Office from providing legal advice to other County agencies.

Essentially, the Board of Supervisors are attempting to politically isolate the County Attorney and render the Office of County Attorney irrelevant to their practices. By hiring Romley, the Board of Supervisors is usurping the will of the voters by creating its own unelected unaccountable County Attorney in Rick Romley.

Sonoran Alliance was first to break the story that County Supervisor Don Stapley was indicted by a grand jury on 118 counts on November 20th. County Attorney Andrew Thomas, alongside Sheriff Joe Arpaio, made the announcement on December 2nd in a joint press conference in which they detailed Stapley’s arrest and the corruption charges against him.

Thomas sees the Board’s latest move as retailiation against the indictement against Stapley. In today’s vote, Stapley participated in the vote against Thomas instead of recusing himself.

Thomas’ office issued the following statement:

Recent events have shown that defendant Don Stapley, a powerful politician, has friends in high places who will try to thwart an ongoing investigation and criminal case against him,” Thomas said in a written statement after the meeting. “However, we are not intimidated and we intend to fully root out the corruption we have found.

The East Valley Tribune also reported on today’s meeting stating that:

The action Tuesday comes as a result of a long festering conflict over Thomas’ responsiveness to the board, Romley said. The indictment of Stapley brought the issue to a head, he said, adding Stapley could not get legal advice as a supervisor from the agency that is prosecuting him.

Romley’s statement obviously begs the question why would Don Stapley seek personal legal advice from the County Attorney on a criminal matter against him in the first place? Don Stapley, the accused, would best be served by hiring outside legal counsel to represent him in his own corruption criminal matter.

What further makes this County feud all the more interesting is that Don Stapley likely sought leniency in who would oversee his judicial proceedings. County insiders believe Stapley sought the help of presiding Superior Court Judge Barbara Rodriguez-Mundell Judge Fields who recruited out of retirement and appointed Judge Kenneth Fields to Stapley’s case.

As reported here on Sonoran Alliance, County Attorney Andrew Thomas publically objected to the appointment of Judge Fields to the case citing judical bias and even producing an affidavit by a county employee who blew the whistle on Judge Fields’ bias and animosity directed toward Thomas.

Today’s vote against complying with ARS 11-532 and the rejection of County legal representation not only makes matters worse for Stapley, it now involves the other Supervisors and opens the full Board to consitutional and legal problems.

During economically desperate times like these when Maricopa County is seeking to cut its budget, it may be in its best interest to cut its political and legal losses.

Yes, Sonoran Alliance is now officially on Facebook as a “Group” if you care to join.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: DECEMBER 23, 2008
CONTACT: KIM SABOW

Brewer Names Deputy Chiefs of Staff for Finance and Operations
Secretary of State announces more senior staff appointments as she prepares for transition to Governor’s Office

PHOENIX – Secretary of State Jan Brewer today announced two more Gubernatorial senior staff appointments, naming Tom Manos as Deputy Chief of Staff for Finance and Brian C. McNeil as Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations.

“I am honored to have such qualified individuals join my team.  Mr. Manos and Mr. McNeil have extensive backgrounds in the field of finance and operations that will serve Arizona well during these difficult economic times.  I have every confidence that they will guide us in our efforts to restore efficiency and fiscal responsibility,” stated Brewer.

Manos has served as Maricopa County’s Chief Financial Officer for the last ten years, and has been with the County since 1984.  During this time, he had responsibility for the County’s Real Estate, Procurement, Risk Management and Parks departments as well as the Maricopa County Stadium District.  Mr. Manos also served as Executive Director of the Maricopa County Industrial Development Authority which has provided financing for over 400 projects, including financings for affordable housing, hospitals and other non-profit borrowers.

Mr. Manos is former President of the Local Government Auditors Association and has been a board member of the YMCA.  He is a native of Arizona and graduated from Arizona State University with a Bachelors of Science degree in Finance.

Brian McNeil has served as Executive Director of the Arizona Corporation Commission since 1999.  Prior to joining the Commission, he was the Deputy Director for Budget and Policy Development at the Arizona Department of Health Services.

McNeil has previously served as a gubernatorial policy advisor, as Director of Operations and Economic Advisor at the Arizona State Senate, as a Principal Forecast Planner for Saudi Arabian Parsons, Limited and as a Fiscal Analyst at the Arizona Joint Legislative Budget Committee.

He is an Arizona native and holds a Master of Public Administration as well as a Bachelor of Science in Economics, both from Arizona State University.  McNeil serves as the Executive Officer of the 492nd Civil Affairs Battalion of the U.S. Army Reserve.  He has deployed twice to serve in Iraq.

The long soap opera in LD4 appears to be over, as former LD4 Chairman Lyle Tuttle won election to a two-year term, once again as chairman of LD4.  Outgoing Chairman Bob Burges was also a candidate, but the race was won by a comfortable margin by Tuttle.

The Organizational Meeting went off without a hitch and the crowd of nearly 70 people seemed pleased at the pace and organization of the meeting itself.  Credit goes to MCRC Chairman Tom Husband and his crew for the job they did.

Self-declared Chairman Phil Corbell did not make an appearance, but several of Corbell’s “officers” did, and they participated in the process without objection.  There has been no public objection or rejection by Corbell of the evening’s results, so all appears to finally be quiet in LD4, at least until February, when they will meet to elect the rest of their officers.

The Governor of New York is about to unleash the power of taxation on the citizens of New York. To make up for a $15.4 Billion budget deficit, Governor David Patterson is proposing 88 new taxes on everything from iPod downloads to movie theatres, cigars to non-diet soft drinks, defibrillators to fuel cells, massages to security guard training and vehicle registration to asbestos removal. The list is endless but moreover, it illustrates how liberals seek to solve fiscal problems – by taxing anything taxable.

Here’s one I’d like to suggest to the Governor. How about a tax on abortion? That’s right, the ultimate sin tax.

The State of New York has already codified the provisions of the notorious Supreme Court ruling, Roe v. Wade which allows for abortion for any reason or no reason at all. It’s not as if abortion is going away any time soon in the State of New York and even if the High Court overturned Roe the states would have to decide this issue on their own turf. New York already has.

Liberals, who overwhelmingly tend to embrace taxes and abortion, should also embrace this policy proposal. The tax revenue could even be used to fund programs for women who choose to have their babies, women who need assistance to raise the next generation of hopefully, taxpayers.

New York’s Department of Vital Statistics latest data on abortion indicates that there were 121,278 abortions performed in 2006. If a $100 fee was assessed on every abortion performed, the State of New York would have over $12 million for programs that help women deciding to give birth.

Of course, this will never happen because those writing the laws in New York (liberals), want the taxpayers to pay for abortions for poor women while making it as easy as possible to get an abortion.

Ultimately, this situation is the perfect “Catch 22.” The Governor wants more tax money and is willing to tax everything that falls under his definition of “sinful behavior” but when it comes to taxing the “sacred rite of abortion,” this will be one area where death and taxes will never cross paths.

(I actually oppose the idea of taxing abortion because it ensures that government remains committed to the practice for the revenue but for the sake of the argument that you tax things you want less of and don’t tax things you want more of, I’ll make the proposal.)

The Phoenix LGBT community must be applauding the Phoenix City Council’s decision to establish a domestic partners’ registry but those concerned about their right to privacy may want to rethink their jubilation.

LGBT members will now be placing their trust in the City of Phoenix to maintain their name on a list that would subject them to the authority of Arizona’s largest municipality.

Although the City of Phoenix is expected to protect the list, it will certainly know who’s on it and should the council ever change hands or the list be “exposed,” LGBT members may find their privacy compromised. We wonder if the Arizona ACLU reared its head in opposition prior to the council taking its vote.

The compilation of a list by a government entity also revisits the issue of whether or not any type of personal relationship status should be entangled in church-state jurisdictionary matters. Paying the City of Phoenix $50 for a domestic partner certificate allows anyone on the council to call the shots. It’s also a symbolic gesture to recognize the City of Phoenix as the authority of any such matters.

A “certificate” recognizing a personal relationship choice may seem like a good way to circumvent the will of the voters (Proposition 102), but LGBT domestic partners may want to reconsider placing their names on a “pink list” that may eventually become black.

Here is the latest press release by the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office regarding the case of Supervisor Don Stapley

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 17, 2008
For more information contact: Mike Anthony Scerbo, Public Information Officer

Courageous Court Employee Exposes Injustice in Stapley Case – Employee Reported Biased Judge to Presiding Criminal Judge, Who Ignored Her

In a stunning development in the criminal case against Maricopa County Supervisor Don Stapley, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and County Attorney Andrew Thomas announced today that an employee of the Maricopa County Superior Court has come forward with revelations that directly contradict claims by county judges that the judge assigned to the case is fair and impartial.

In a recorded interview granted to sheriff’s deputies late yesterday, Robin Hoskins, a long-time and respected court employee who coordinates the county’s specialty courts, revealed that she has personally witnessed and complained about retired Judge Kenneth Fields’ bias and animosity towards the County Attorney and the County Attorney’s Office. Fields’ open and politically charged criticism of Thomas and his office were so outrageous that she recently informed Judge Anna Baca about the events.

Specifically, at an October 28, 2008, meeting of the Superior Court’s Veterans’ Court Exploratory Committee, over which Fields presided, Fields openly rooted for the defeat of Thomas in the election the following week and claimed inaccurately that Thomas opposed the creation of a veterans’ court. Fields subsequently gave an interview to KTAR radio repeating this allegation, a story that ran on November 3, one day before the election. Hoskins concluded that Fields’ statement misrepresented what the County Attorney’s Office said at the meeting.

When the minutes of the meeting taken by Hoskins contradicted Judge Fields and reflected that the County Attorney’s Office was not opposed to the concept of a veterans’ court, Judge Fields called Hoskins and told her the minutes should be changed. She refused to change the minutes.

During the October meeting on the veterans’ court, Hoskins also felt that Judge Fields was “harsh” and evidenced an animosity towards the County Attorney’s Office and its representative, long-time prosecutor and Division Chief Barbara Marshall. Marshall’s affidavit backs up that claim. It states:

… He also made a comment about the upcoming election and the possibility of a new county attorney who might be more friendly towards this proposal.

…I stated that MCAO did not agree with everything that had been discussed thus far. Judge Fields then stated, “There is one dissent with the current Maricopa County Attorney’s Office

Hoskins was so disturbed by Fields’ comments that in early November 2008, she raised them directly with Judge Baca, the county’s presiding criminal judge. In her interview yesterday, Hoskins explained:

…If I feel like there’s something that um just isn’t acting in, act as professional and with integrity that I just had to say something and I did say something to my boss. And I actually did say something to Judge Baca as well.

…I just let her (Baca) know how the first meeting went and I let her know that I had gone to my supervisor and that I had an uneasiness about. And felt if anyone were to go to Judge Fields it couldn’t be me. It would have to be another judge.

On December 15, 2008, a month after Hoskins expressed her concerns about Judge Fields’ open animosity towards the County Attorney’s Office to Judge Baca, Baca denied a request seeking to remove Judge Fields from the Stapley case due to bias and prejudice. Judge Baca’s ruling stated in part, “The affidavit fails to allege any facts based on the affiant’s personal knowledge.” In fact, as Hoskins’ recorded testimony makes clear, Baca had personal knowledge of animosity Judge Fields holds towards the County Attorney’s Office. Not only did she fail to consider it in assigning an unbiased judge, she failed to disclose it to the State.

These latest revelations about Fields’ bias are in addition to evidence already presented by prosecutors to the court. This includes:

• A letter Judge Fields sent to the State Bar critical of the County Attorney’s Office. The letter cites as its primary source a New Times article.
• A November 2007 Republic article in which Fields publicly criticizes Thomas’ actions as “reckless”
• A financial disclosure statement that shows Fields contributed $390 to the campaign of Mr. Thomas’ opponent in the November election

Despite having all this information, Judge Fields has refused to recuse himself, as the rules of judicial ethics require him to do, and Judge Baca has refused to appoint a different judge. In court documents, the County Attorney’s Office has noted that Presiding Judge Barbara Rodriguez Mundell has worked with Supervisor Stapley to secure funding for a new court tower costing more than $300 million. The two also have worked together on numerous fiscal and countywide issues. The board of supervisors writes and approves the budget for county agencies, including the county courts.

Arpaio stated, “”This is a criminal case involving a very influential suspect. We urge the judges to make sure Mr. Stapley gets no special favors.”

Thomas stated, “Judge Baca had direct knowledge from a court employee that Judge Fields is biased against this office and she failed to act in the interest of justice. It is difficult not to conclude that Mr. Stapley is somehow receiving special treatment from the judiciary. It is extraordinary, but not surprising to me, that Judge Fields tried to gin up a negative story about the County Attorney’s Office right before the election and then tried to change the minutes of a meeting to back up his statements. What is far worse is that the leadership of the county judiciary has ignored the concerns of one of its own employees about a biased judge who was improperly assigned to an important case.”

Thomas stated that these latest revelations may require a broader investigation by the Supreme Court and Legislature, and that he is considering making a formal request for both actions.

Check out the hilarious artwork put together for a Phoenix New Times article.

The New Times is refuting and challenging a recent post by one of our writers, “Pat” regarding articles surrounding Maricopa County’s Supervisor Don Stapley, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and County Attorney Andrew Thomas.

The photo is pretty funny and I will neither confirm nor deny any of the images presented.

And who is that second from the left? Papa Smurf?

Greg Patterson at Espresso Pundit has a pretty good assessment of a long-standing problem that Tucson has had with its city government elections. Both Greg and I would know since we both are derived from Tucson and have seen first-hand the problem in action.

Greg’s post addresses the issue of a legislative solution to Tucson’s partisan-style election system. But I want to add another point to his post that is often overlooked. And I would know having been intimately familiar with the problem in the early 90′s.

Presently, the City of Tucson holds a primary election for its mayor and councilmen. Both parties usually put up good candidates. City council candidates go through the primary at the ward level. Mayoral candidates go through the primary city-wide.

The problem comes into play during the general election. All primary candidate winners (mayoral and councilmen) move on to the general election but instead of the voters in each ward electing their own councilman, the rest of the city gets to vote in the ward elections. (Tucson City Charter, Chapter XVI, Section 9) This means that the voters of one ward may overwhelmingly elect a councilman who is rejected by all the other wards voting. The best example would be akin to having Arizona nominating its two US Senate candidates only to have the rest of the states gang up and vote for the candidate who would have received the lesser votes by Arizona voters.

Sec. 9. Mayor nominated and elected at large; councilmen nominated from wards, elected at large.
Beginning in the year 1930, and continuing thereafter, the mayor shall be nominated from and elected by the voters of the city at large, and the councilmen shall be nominated each from, and by the respective voters of, the ward in which he resides, and shall be elected by the voters of the city at large.

It’s completely unfair to the voters of each ward.

My understanding of the system goes back to Tucson’s City Charter. If I recall correctly, the election provision dates back to 1930 when the population of Tucson was sparse and there were barely any voters to participate in an election. I assume the then city council wrote the charter in a way to bring as many voters into the process regardless of where they lived and how many wards there were.

Fast forward to the last decade on the 20th century and Tucson has grown exponentially. There are clearly more voters and more unique areas of Tucson that deserve to elect individuals who are invested in their community.

In the early 90′s I was part of a committee to change Tucson’s city charter so that voters could vote for their primary candidate winners not just in the primary but in the general election as well. That effort failed primarily because there was limited interest to move it forward. And this was during a time where East Tucson, which is primarily Republican, would put up a great conservative candidate only to have the other wards reject that candidate in favor of some liberal wacko.

I now live in Mesa, the third largest city in Arizona (behind Tucson) where the voters do get to elect their councilmen by ward in the primary and general – although it is a non-partisan election.

So my recommendation to Senate-elect Jonathan Paton would be to not only make city elections non-partisan but to require cities above specific sizes to elect their councilmen by ward only in the general election.

Update: Sonoran Alliance contacted Senator-elect Jonathan Paton regarding his legislative efforts and discovered that the bill currently scheduled to be introduced will contain the Election by Ward provision.