Tue 27 Oct 2009
Maricopa County Manager Takes Aim at MCAO, Conservative Bloggers
Posted by DSW under Blogs , County Government , Freedom of Speech[36] Comments
The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office released the following statement today regarding a letter demanding disclosure of conflicts of interest in the County Attorney’s Office:
Good afternoon,
County Manager David Smith is demanding disclosure of any communication between several employees at the County Attorney’s Office and a number of media outlets including , The Arizona Republic, the East Valley Tribune, The New Times, several conservative web sites “or any other internet site or address.” A letter sent to a number of County Attorney employees also demands details of communications that happened during non work hours using personal computers. A copy of the letter is attached.
The move comes days after the Board of Supervisors stalled a criminal probe of county government by refusing to hire outside prosecutors while at the same time demanding that the County Attorney’s Office not prosecute potential cases.
Among those receiving the letter is the Public Information Officer for the County Attorney’s Office, whose job it is to communicate with the media.
Mike Scerbo and Barnett Lotstein are available for comment
Also available for comment are two conservative bloggers targeted by county management.
Shane Wikfors, SonoranAlliance.com
David Roney, CactusAlliance.com
Michael Anthony Scerbo
MCAO PIO
This appears to be another public relations problem for the County Manager, Public Information Office and Board of Supervisors. Why they would refer to Sonoran Alliance in their letter of demand, puzzles me. Over time, several of our bloggers have reported on the machinations of County Government but these have been reported elsewhere or are in the public domain. Our posts are also considered editorial pieces which I would remind Manager Smith that he is the manager of the 5th largest county in the country which is not without disagreements and controversy.
The other point I would make, and I hope the County Manager reads this, is that I have never, do not and never will reveal the identities of those who write for Sonoran Alliance. Over the years, we have had almost two dozen contributors to this blog and I am not about to expose any of them over some county public relations problem. Similarly, I also want to be clear that Sonoran Alliance does not reveal any relationships it has with local, county, state or federal governmental entities.
I recognize that this latest battle is between the County Manager and the County Attorney. I have NOT been approached by anyone from the County Manager’s Office regarding this inquisition and I would warn the County Manager that he may be treading dangerously close to chilling someone’s First Amendment rights.
October 27th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
?? The County Manager is DEMANDING disclosure of communications between employees of the County Attorney’s office and several media outlets, INCLUDING what they have written privately on their own time from their own, personal computers? Is this real? Is he real?
I want to know where the Board of Supervisors stands on this issue, and why they have allowed this to happen. If I owned a dog that ran amuck and did damage, I would be responsible for it. David Smith has human intelligence, albeit poorly directed, so he is responsible for his own actions, but the people who direct his activities also need to be held to account, just as I would if my dog were to run wild.
It seems that Mr. Smith is challenging the First Amendment. Perhaps he might be interested in taking up residence in a different country if he is opposed to the exercise of free speech, and adherence to our Constitution. ?
The County Manager seems to have no boundaries or self control. In this latest action, he seems to be dragging himself and the Board right to the edge of the abyss. He ought to check his bungee cord making the big leap. I think he is in for a hard landing no matter what he does.
October 27th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
This is where politics in 2009 gets interesting. Google recently lost a court battle and had to give out the name of the anonymous blogger who was trashing the model in New York. I’m not a lawyer so I couldn’t claim to know the first thing about ethics rules.
I have questioned when Rachel Alexander from IC Arizona posts information. Rachel is open and honest about who she is and who she works for (CA Thomas). Is it a conflict? Is she off the clock when postings are done in the middle of the day? Are there ethical disclosures she is obligated to disclose when posting? I ask because I don’t know the answers. If she is compliant in those, she has every right to post whatever she wants under he own name or any other Sonoran Alliance pseudonym.
We all have the right though to post on here anonymously without the government coming in and snooping. Arpaio and Thomas learned that the hard way when he tried to get access to the New Times comments.
As long as it isn’t done on the taxpayers bill, and ethically things are in the clear- there should be limits to what government agencies are looking for. We have enough fishing expeditions going on, we don’t need any more.
October 27th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Roger, the model case involved defamation – clearly saying things that are false about someone. It’s a high bar to prove, especially against a public person. In the model’s case, they referred to her as “skanky,” “ho”, and “whoring.” Whereas the posts I’ve seen on this site aren’t defaming the Supervisors, but reporting information relating to their feuding with various county offices.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=8359356
October 27th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
But the bigger issue, at least from what Smith wrote in the letter (not printed here, but available elswhere online), is that the county’s legal representation may be violating ethical rules by denigrating its client in public forums. State Bar rules for attorneys’ ethics are very strict.
Smith is citing Section 1.6 of Rule 42 of Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct, which states: “A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation or the disclosure is permitted or required by paragraphs (b), (c) or (d). or ER 3.3(a)(3).”
Basically, an attorney can’t breach attorney-client privelege without permission from the client or being forced to in certain circumstances under Bar rules.
I’m curious to know what the attorneys who read this site think of this whole mess.
October 27th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Legal Eagle is right. Sure the BOS thinks they are being defamed but the level to prove it is higher almost impossible because they are elected public figures. Certainly brings up questions of 1st amend rights and anonymous blogging though. Scary times all around.
October 27th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
In the old days, it was okay for a government employee to use the office phone to order yourself a pizza, right? And for a spouse to call you at work, right?
Clearly, David Smith is wrong about what is reasonable in the workplace, and in fact making a dangerous statement for a manager to make by arguing about the content of the emails in question. He just can’t win, on those grounds. How about appointing a special prosecutor to get him to stop his bullying of fellow county employees?
October 27th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
This is the height of arrogance! If Smith did this on his own the BOS needs to first have him neutered, then fired. They have freely and without impunity trampled all over the Constitution so often they have forgotten their place.
The first amendment is something that doesn’t seem to concern them at all. That alone should scare the heck out of everyone one any side of any issue.
SMITH MUST GO NOW!!!
October 27th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Her? –
Rule 1.6 of the AZ Rules of Professional Conduct protects “attorney-client COMMUNICATIONS.” The feuding between the Supervisors and the County Attorney’s Office is not private communications between the two offices, it is all public feuding. Look at the press releases both offices have issued attacking each other.
Doesn’t matter anyways, the Supervisors fired the County Attorney’s Office as their attorney months ago and now run their own Shadow County Attorney’s office which provides them with advice. They can’t now turn around and claim that they’ve rehired them back so there is now attorney-client privilege!
Smith has bitten off more than he can chew here. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone files a bar complaint against him with the New York State Bar where he is licensed as an attorney.
October 27th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
The ethical rule in question allows an exception for the attorney to publicly address a conflict between him and the client. In my legal opinion, I believe publicly discussing the dispute between the Supervisors and the County Attorney falls easily under this exception:
(d) A lawyer may reveal such information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:
(4) to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the lawyer based upon conduct in which the client was involved, or to respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer’s representation of the client
http://www.myazbar.org/Ethics/ruleview.cfm?id=26
October 27th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Attorney-client privilege doesn’t exist, because Judge Donald Daughton upheld the Supervisors’ firing of the County Attorney as their attorney in August. http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/08/27/20090827supsruling-onl.html
October 27th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Are all the authors retarded or just that mix of arrogant and stupid?
October 27th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Nope, just you Folger. Everyone else seems to get it.
October 27th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Arrogant and stupid certainly define Smith and the worst run county in America.
It is amazing the lengths they are going to in order to protect Stapley and Wilcox from investigation. If anyone had doubts that they are up to something, the effort to prevent scrutiny should answer the question.
October 27th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Here we go again. This is another slam against basic constitutional rights in a lame effort to stifle dissent. David Smith needs to read the Constitution of the United States Bill of rights. This is also another example of the utter lack of ethics and character from county “leadership.” Republicans need to take back the tenets of our party and end this madness.
October 27th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
‘cept you mole because you obviously didn’t get what or who I was talking about.
dumbass
October 27th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Wow, almost as sweeping as Arpaio’s FOIA requests.
When will this carnival act end. I really would like to know what the Republican Party leadership is doing in all this. This is essentially an intra-party squabble, so how about people stepping up and telling all these clowns if they keep this up they will not get support in their next election bid.
October 27th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Makes me pine for the days when real men like Hamilton and Burr settled their differences with a pistol duel. So much more civilized.
But seriously, Thomas is doing the job he was elected (twice) to do, and Stapley and crew are using their elected positions to try to stop Thomas. Easy call to make.
October 27th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE PROVE TO US WHERE ATTORNEY-CLIENT INFORMATION WAS DIVULGED?!?!?!
October 27th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
The long knives are being swung about and innocent bystanders might get cut in the feud.
Frankly this whole situation is getting old. Come next November, I’m thinking it might be best to start over with all parties concerned. What a waste of taxpayer money. I don’t know who is right, but I sure know who is wrong.
October 28th, 2009 at 12:39 am
Wolfy the elected for the job bit is old. The dupes were elected to manage the various departments of the county. Right now- no one is doing their job and this is making our state a laughing stock.
October 28th, 2009 at 12:47 am
Billbo I have my drothers with the BOS but Stapleys first charges were dropped and the second ones were and are a joke from beginning to end. The arrest was a joke, and what he’s charged with is a joke especially to be paying thousands to out of town lawyers. We all know what he was running for and there were no laws broken because there are no laws that govern those elections. Quit with the flushing of our tax money.
Mary Rose can be investigated by those agencies where rules were broken (FAA etc).
October 28th, 2009 at 5:53 am
[...] While there are some traditional media outlets mentioned, blogs are specifically targeted. The Sonoran Alliance, The Cactus Alliance and Intellectual Conservative Arizona are all named in the letter as being [...]
October 28th, 2009 at 7:02 am
Jason – the charges were dropped for strategic reasons. They are waiting for a ruling from the appeals court on the misdemeanors before reinstating the first batch of charges. Once they get a special prosecutor, the second batch will also move forward. It’s far from over.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:10 am
Hmmmm!
Rumor has it that Dave Smith has made his own contacts….with Rahm Emmanuel!!
October 28th, 2009 at 8:29 am
Mole prosecute him all you want, raising money for a private organization is legal and not subject to finance reporting laws.
What pisses me off is when it is all said and done Stapley will sue for damages and win guess who picks up the tab- you and I.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Legal Eagle
I was just pointing out that the days of guaranteed anonymous blogging are over. Better to be careful what you say, because you just never know.
The sites and references are specific. They know who they are looking for, they just aren’t being specific in this letter. Can’t wait to see where this goes but I just wish it would all just stop. I have my own bills to pay, I’m sick of paying for their infighting.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:03 am
Interesting, the other county officials have all recently asked for Smith’s removal.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/10/28/20091028county1028.html
The article also says: Tim McGuire, an ethics professor at the Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University, said Smith’s request was “nothing short of ridiculous.” McGuire said the letter was “silly and sophomoric” and another example of “the very odd government that seems to exist in Maricopa County.”
October 28th, 2009 at 10:17 am
[...] While there are some traditional media outlets mentioned, blogs are specifically targeted. The Sonoran Alliance, The Cactus Alliance and Intellectual Conservative Arizona are all named in the letter as being [...]
October 28th, 2009 at 10:30 am
[...] While there are some traditional media outlets mentioned, blogs are specifically targeted. The Sonoran Alliance, The Cactus Alliance and Intellectual Conservative Arizona are all named in the letter as being [...]
October 28th, 2009 at 11:14 am
[...] While there are some traditional media outlets mentioned, blogs are specifically targeted. The Sonoran Alliance, The Cactus Alliance and Intellectual Conservative Arizona are all named in the letter as being [...]
October 28th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
[...] so it seems. This actually raises some interesting questions about free speech, conflict of interest, and [...]
October 28th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
DSW,
What happened to your readers? Even the ones I agree with have gotten shrill and seem to lack any class and demeanor. The ones I don’t agree with have stepped into the gutter and spew nothing but invective. No need to identify which group is which, for they are both making a mockery of intelligent and civil discourse. Your blog and the excellent information you provide command a much higher quality of expression in the comments section. You should get delete those comments which provide evidence of the demise of our culture, and keep only those which are civil and decent, whether you agree with the comments or not.
You will likely attract more readers as a result.
October 28th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
[...] http://conservablogs.com/bluecollarmuse/2009/10/27/az-county-gop-pols-squash-1st-amendment-rights/ [...]
October 28th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
[...] http://sonoranalliance.com/?p=5597 [...]
October 28th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
[...] Sonoran Alliance [...]
October 29th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
I see the great Sheridan Folger has spoken. Once again the pretender goes off with something that only works in his own deranged mind.