County Government


A m e r i c a n P o s t – G a z e t t e

Distributed by C O M M O N S E N S E , in Arizona

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

County Supervisors spent more money on lobbyists than any other government agency


From yellowsheetreport.com

Budget problems didn’t stop governments in Maricopa and Pima counties from shelling out the big bucks on lobbying expenses last year. Maricopa County Supervisors spent $414,000 last year on public and private lobbyists and consultants. They hired private sector notables like Marcus Dell’Artino, HighGround, Lasota and Peters, Lee Miller and Rip Wilson. Pima threw down $220,000 on lobbyists, including private guns Art Chapa and Michael Racy.

On the city side, Phoenix dropped $192,000 for lobbying expenditures in 2009.

Much of the reported expenses covered city employees like Karen Peters, Thomas Remes, John Gonzales and Tom Buschatzke. But the city also wasn’t shy about hiring private talent. They paid Kevin DeMenna almost $35,000. Gallagher and Kennedy received $28,500, and R and R Partners pulled in $15,000 from the city, which reported 29 registered lobbyists. Tucson spent even more, but their reported $235,000 lobbying tab was directed to city employee Mary Okoye. Phoenix’s 2009 lobbying bill increased by almost $35,000 compared to 2008. Tucson’s held steady.

Join Our Mailing List

A m e r i c a n P o s t – G a z e t t e

Distributed by C O M M O N S E N S E , in Arizona

Friday, March 8, 2010

Coverage you won’t get from the Republic

Who is this US Attorney investigating Arpaio?

The recent news that the U.S. Attorney’s Office has launched a grand jury investigation into Sheriff Joe Arpaio and may also be investigating County Attorney Andrew Thomas has been treated by the media like a legitimate law enforcement exercise by unbiased federal officials. While the mainstream media typically ascribe purer motives to the actions of Democrats, even by the low standards by which people now judge the media, they are ignoring a major story. The elephant, er, donkey in the room is Dennis Burke, the liberal Democrat who President Obama recently appointed to be U.S. Attorney.

So far the media have given Mr. Burke a pass on his highly partisan record. His record would seem important because it wasn’t until the Obama administration took over the Justice Department and replaced the apolitical former U.S. Attorney with Burke that the U.S. Attorney’s Office started looking into Arpaio. The Arizona Republic claims that they are looking at Andrew Thomas too.

The Obama administration obviously has a very different opinion on illegal immigration than Thomas and Arpaio have, as evidenced by Obama’s recent push for amnesty (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/04/nation/la-na-immigration5-2010mar05), and has tried to stop the pair from enforcing laws against illegal immigration. Might this investigation be about shutting down their efforts to combat illegal immigration for good? Might this have anything to do with the fact that the hyper-political Dennis Burke likely harbors political ambitions, and perhaps sees fellow lawyer and law enforcement officer Andrew Thomas as a rival from the other side of the political spectrum?

Since the media has failed to cover this story and thus allow readers to decide for themselves whether the Obama administration’s investigation is about justice or politics, it falls to this blog to answer the key question: Who is Dennis Burke?

Many people here remember Burke as Janet Napolitano’s longtime henchman in the Governor’s Office and Attorney General’s Office, but a bio provided by the Justice Department shows that Burke’s partisan record goes beyond that. http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2009/October/09-ag-1149.html

Burke’s first job was as a majority staffer for the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks. His tenure there lasted from 1989 until 1994, and it is probably no coincidence that Burke’s time there ended when the Republicans took over Congress. Who was Burke’s boss while serving in this role? None other than liberal Democrat Senator Dennis DeConcini, who used to represent Arizona.

From 1995 when the Democrats lost Congress until 1999, Burke served in a couple different roles in the Clinton Administration. He was a lobbyist for the Clinton Justice Department and even served a three year stint as a White House staffer. During that time Burke also served under former U.S. Attorneys Janet Napolitano and then Jose de Jesus Rivera, himself a liberal activist http://phoenix.gov/NEWSREL/SUPPORT/rivera.pdf who recently chaired the campaign of liberal Democrat Tim Nelson for County Attorney.

With Janet Napolitano’s election as Attorney General in 1998, Dennis Burke returned to Arizona to serve as her right hand man, and served as her chief of staff after she was elected Governor.

This looks like a pretty partisan record, but it gets worse once we look at Dennis Burke’s political contributions over the years. All of his contributions to state and federal candidates and political committees over the last twelve years are listed below.

FEDERAL*

Ed Pastor (Democrat for U.S. House), 12/5/97, $250

10/24/00, $250

Al Gore, 7/22/99, $250

10/24/99, $500

Fred Duval (Democrat for U.S. House), 6/27/01, $500

Mary Ryan Judge, (Democrat for U.S. House), 10/27/01, $500

Sam Martinez, (Democrat for U.S. House), 12/18/2001, $250

Debra Norris (Democrat for U.S. House), 1/14/02, $300

Arizona Democrat Party, 11/4/02, $500

3/17/04, $1,000

10/4/06, $2,000

Paul Babbit (Democrat for U.S. House), 11/17/03, $250

Hillary Rodham Clinton, 1/6/04, $1,000

Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee/e/e, 3/24/04, $250

John Kerry, 6/7/04, $1,000

7/21/04, $1,000

Raul Grijalva (Democrat for U.S. House), 8/31/04, $250

6/2/05, $250

Jim Pederson (Democrat for U.S. Senate), 9/15/05, $1,000

Harry Mitchell (Democrat for U.S. House), 5/15/06, $1,000

Gabby Giffords (Democrat for U.S. House), 10/27/06, $250

6/5/07, $350

7/1/07, $200

11/28/07, $500

Bob Lord (Democrat for U.S. House), 5/18/07, $250

9/17/07, $200

10/1/08, $300

10/28/08, $250

Ann Kirkpatrick (Democrat for U.S. House), 3/28/08, $500

Jared Polis (Democrat for U.S. House, Colorado), 6/17/08, $250

Total=$18,350

* to verify these numbers, go to http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/advindsea.shtml, plug in Dennis Burke, Arizona

STATE**

Janet Napolitano (Democrat for Arizona Attorney General), 11/4/97, $760

9/14/98, $100

Chris Cummiskey (Democrat for Arizona Senate), 8/30/00, $256

Nucleus Club (Liberal Democrat group), 12/11/00, $20

2/7/01, $300

12/2/01, $140

2/12/02, $275

2/17/03, $275

4/5/05, $275

3/20/06, $275

1/23/07, $330

1/21/08, $330

4/21/08, $40

Maricopa County Democrat Party, 6/20/01, $25

7/22/04, $500

2/23/06, $500

4/21/08, $1,000

Gabby Giffords (Democrat for Arizona Senate), 10/15/01, $200

Wally Straughn (Democrat for Arizona House), 11/7/01, $110

Christine Weason (Democrat for Arizona House), 11/30/01, $110

Peter Moraga (Democrat for Arizona House), 12/14/01, $200

Phil Amorosi (Democrat for Arizona House), 1/23/02, $110

Rod Rich (Democrat for Arizona School Superintendent), 2/23/02, $110

Jesse George (Democrat for Arizona House), 3/19/02, $110

Shirley McAllister (Democrat for Arizona House), 5/1/02, $110

Ted Murphree (Democrat for Arizona House), 8/7/02, $110

West Democrat Headquarters, 1/24/02, $240

3/27/08, $100

Foothills Democrats, 3/15/03, $45

3/12/04, $48

Arizona Democrat Party, 8/8/03, $1,000

Catalina Democrats, 8/24/03, $150

Phil Lopes (Democrat for Arizona House), 10/29/05, $60

Young Democrats of Arizona, 5/2/05, $500

Rebecca Rios (Democrat for Arizona Senate), 7/3/06, $120

Jason Williams (Democrat for Arizona School Superintendent), 10/14/06, $150

District 11 Democrats, 2002, $674 (total from numerous contributions)

2003 and 2004, $740 (total from numerous contributions)

1/11/05, $10

1/19/05, $40

1/9/07, $20

5/8/07, $10

1/8/08, $20

Robert Meza, (Democrat for Arizona House), 9/19/07, $200

9/24/08, $190

Pima County Democrat Party, 10/13/08, $500

Total= $12,398

** to verify these numbers go to http://www.azsos.gov/cfs/ContributorSearch.aspx and plug in Dennis Burke. Unfortunately it must be plugged in for every general election to get the full report.

All told, that’s over $30,000 in the last twelve years to Democrat candidates and groups, and not one penny to Republicans.

These contribution records are especially stunning when one looks at the contributions of the two U.S. Attorneys who were appointed by President Bush. Diane Humetawa, who Burke replaced, did not give any money to federal or state candidates. Paul Charlton gave some money, but his giving was a fraction of Burke’s and was mixed-he gave money to Democrats such as Terry Goddard and Gabby Giffords.

Somehow I doubt that if a political appointee with a partisan record as a Republican were looking into a popular local Democrat with a grand jury probe he would enjoy the same media presumption of objectivity and proper motives.

As the U.S. Attorney’s Office moves forward with its probe it will be important to view it through the proper lens. Despite the false veneer of objectivity that the Republic and other liberal media sources will try to give it, in reality it’s nothing but a witch hunt by the Obama administration led by a handpicked appointee of President Obama with a record of extreme partisanship.

Join Our Mailing List

A m e r i c a n P o s t – G a z e t t e

Distributed by C O M M O N S E N S E , in Arizona

Friday, March 5, 2010

Republic has become Corrupt County Supervisors’ Second Public Relations Wing(ett)

wingnut-republic

In one of the slimiest pieces of “yellow journalism” in recent memory, the Republic ran a front page top story asserting that the FBI is investigating County Attorney Andrew Thomas.
THE TRUTH?

Thomas says NO ONE from the FBI has contacted him, nor has anyone else at his office indicated to him they have been contacted.

This fact is not indicated on the front page, but is buried and glossed over in the article. “The U.S. Attorney’s Office and the FBI would neither confirm nor deny that Thomas is under investigation.” Instead, a huge headline leads the reader to believe the FBI is investigating Thomas’ Office. The article seems to say, we don’t know the facts, but this is what we are reporting anyway.

Next to the article is an unflattering photo of Thomas in a further attempt to demean him.

It is long known that “reporter” Yvonne Wingett acts as a second PR wing for the Supervisors due to her cozy relationship with the Supervisors’ PIO Richard DeUriarte, a former Republic editorial writer. The basis for her story clearly came straight from the Supervisors, who feed information to her inappropriately in order to taint newspaper coverage. There is a reason why her last name is Wingett, she is a second PR Wing for the Supervisors and absent facts she simple wing(s) it.

The article then goes on to recount the Supervisors’ efforts in court to thwart the criminal investigations of Supervisors Wilcox and Stapley – but the way it is sleazily written, it sounds like the court hearings are related to this supposed FBI investigation of Thomas. In reality, the court hearings took place to address why the Supervisors have blocked Thomas from prosecuting them. The coverage doesn’t mention that at the conclusion of the hearing, the judge gave Thomas a VICTORY (which even left-wing Republic columnist EJ Montini has admitted was a victory), saying he could appoint a special prosecutor to prosecute the Supervisors – what the Supervisors had been blocking all along.

The article then cites some dusty random left-wing law professor who says he’s not surprised the FBI is investigating Thomas.

It is only casually mentioned that several employees from the Supervisors’ office have been interrogated by the FBI. Why wasn’t there an equivalent front page story on how the Supervisors are under investigation by the FBI!? Those County Supervisor employees who have been interrogated include County Manager David Smith (EVERY county elected official has asked the Supervisors to remove him), his Deputy Manger Sandi Wilson (who is universally despised around the County), and County CIO Steve Wetzel, who is in hot water over increasing the size of County IT by 30% and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on brand-new unnecessary equipment while the rest of the county is forced to cut 15% of their budgets. Why would the FBI investigate the County’s CIO if the investigation is only about racial profiling by the Sheriff’s Office?

Buried at the bottom of page A14 of the paper is a victory Thomas just got yesterday which MASSIVELY SUPERSEDES the made-up story about the FBI. THAT story should have been at the top of the front page. In it, it is revealed that Thomas has found another County Attorney in the state to prosecute the Supervisors, Gila County Attorney Daisy Flores. The significance of this cannot be overstated. Liberal country club Republican Sheila Polk, the Yavapai County Attorney, had punted half of the Supervisor prosecutions back to Thomas, because she is seeking an appointed to the Court of Appeals as a judge and needs to curry favor with the liberal judiciary. The Republic has consistently painted her actions as a rejection of the prosecutions without revealing any of her real motivations. This despite Polk herself stating the Stapley case “has merit.” Now that another County Attorney has no problem taking the case, where is the Republic’s analysis of the distinction? Nowhere. The Republic’s agenda is more about supporting their masters on the Board and ruining the prosecutor and sheriff. Providing their readers with the truth simply conflicts with that agenda.

Meanwhile, Supervisors Stapley and Wilcox run around free. Let’s not forget that Stapley was indicted for misusing thousands of dollars raised as campaign funds in an UNCONTESTED RACE to buy luxury items including lavish vacation trips for himself and his family. Wilcox was indicted for funneling massive amounts of taxpayers’ money to the left-wing activist group Chicanos for la Causa then accepting discounted loans from them. We sure wish we could funnel taxpayers’ money to the GOP then receive our own personal discounted loans from the GOP! And we’re going to say we’re running for dogcatcher, collect contributions, then spend the money on high-end stereo equipment and massages like Stapley did. When it comes time for prosecution, we’ll FIRE THE PROSECUTOR!

Join Our Mailing List

I haven’t written about Maricopa County politics for some time so perhaps I’d better weigh in with some thoughts.

It’s a real mess. The public perception is that there are two corrupt County Supervisors and a very aggressive County Attorney locked in a death match over County turf and taxpayer money.

I have always been a big supporter of Andy Thomas (ever since he was our lobbyist at Arizona Right to Life) and I will continue to be a supporter of Andy Thomas no matter what office he pursues. However, if I were advising him – and I guess I am right now – I would ask him to remain in the post of County Attorney and fulfill his term. In all the political shots being fird back and forth between him, certain supervisors and the courts, he needs to finish the battle and prove himself right and victorious.

It’s no secret that before the MCAO began looking at County government, the Supervisors flew below the radar in terms of public scrutiny. After first being elected, Thomas became aware of certain County machinations and decided to look into it. But it has not been without a major fight and one that has created so much smoke that no one seems to know who’s right and wrong. So my advice to Andy is this: “Stay comitted to the law and this cause to root out corruption by remaining our County Attorney. See this thing through.”

If Thomas does decide to resign and run for Attorney General, it will be a long fought political battle. Time is running out to raise money and gather signatures. Tom Horne is ahead in the race and let’s not forget every other statewide candidate has been running for months.

Then there’s the issue of who becomes County Attorney if Thomas resigns. Hands down, I’d pick Bill Montgomery but I’m not a Supervisor (although I’m seriously considering challenging Don Stapley in 2012). Recently, Laurie Roberts at the Republic posted a piece about Chandler Mayor, Boyd Dunn, gunning or rather, being “approached” to replace Thomas should Thomas resign. At the same time, Chandler, which has the policy and reputation of being a “sanctuary city” for illegal immigrants and the stalking grounds of the recently plead-guilty, illegal alien Chandler rapist, has suddenly decided to consider eliminating its “sanctuary city” policy. My guess, like Laurie Roberts, is that the mayor is seeking to polish up his resume hoping to receive the appointment and I’ve been told that Don Stapley is behind the effort to appoint  Dunn as Thomas’ replacement.

Call me a cynic but this is all starting to reinforce the notion that County government is still a good ‘ol boys club in which the good ‘ol boys hope no one is paying any attention. And that takes me back to the premise of my post. Thomas certainly is paying attention and it’s all the more reason why I believe he needs to stick around and help clean up the mess.

A m e r i c a n P o s t – G a z e t t e

Distributed by C O M M O N S E N S E , in Arizona

Monday, March 1, 2010

Greed in high places

Supervisor Don Stapley’s crime spree abetted by Board

In an Arizona Republic interview, Don Stapley whines that his wife can’t buy her dream car, a new Lexus to replace her 7-series BMW.

.

We all know the story about the teenager who killed his parents and begged the court for mercy. Please, your honor, release me. I am an orphan. There is a remarkable resemblance between the legendary teen and Maricopa County Supervisor, Don Stapley who allegedly immerses himself deeply in all manner of illegal activity. Stapley was indicted for fraud, theft and lying about personal and campaign finances. In the middle of one of the worst recessions in history, while under criminal investigation, Stapley is laying off County workers and putting families on the street so he can build his Taj Mahal as a monument to his greatness. Meanwhile, Stapley cry’s to the Arizona Republic about how his life was ruined by all the pressure, which puts him in league with the parent-killing orphan begging for mercy. He wants us to feel sorry for him. He whines that his wife can’t buy her dream car, a new Lexus to replace her 7-series BMW. He is, after all, (just ask him) an “honest” man. Our advice to Stapley, the “honest” man: if you don’t want to be indicted, don’t commit crimes.

While Stapley is under indictment for multiple felonies including financial misreporting and misusing finance funds, the other Supervisors elect him Chairman of the Board. He earned their trust, (sarcasm intended) according to the allegations, by spending thousands of dollars raised as campaign funds instead on personal luxury items, like $6,000 on electronics at Bang and Olufson, $400 for candle holders, $10,000 for furniture for his home, and $11,000 on a three week vacation for his entire family at a Hawaiian beach house. As if that were not enough, he also purchased tickets to Broadway plays and movie theaters, flowers, groceries, massages, department store merchandise, and a ski holiday in Sundance, Utah for his family, all with campaign funds. He also used some of that money to purchase hair plugs for himself to the tune of about $1300. Then there was that trip for his son and friends to Florida. The man knows how to spend money. Keep in mind, he is an “honest” man.

Speaking of spending, Stapley and his gang of elected thugs, otherwise known as the Board of Supervisors, contracted to build a hugely expensive courthouse, known as the Taj Mahal, that is not only unneeded, but its use would force the closure of satellite courts and require taxpayers to travel long distances from every corner of the county to use the court. This county is larger than the entire State of Israel, but why should anyone care about the taxpaying public?

Investigators have tried to dig into the transaction records of this massive boondoggle, but Stapley and his gang deny access. They have the files locked up tighter than Obama’s birth certificate and school records. The Board of Supervisors hired attorney Tom Irvine as a “space planner” to protect the project from outside scrutiny. Irvin is also paid to protect their little cartel while representing the courts. Conflict of interest? This is the same attorney whose advice got the Scottsdale Chamber sued over improper campaign tactics; at least the Chamber had the sense to fire him.

County Attorney Andrew Thomas is doing his best to clean up this mess despite roadblocks and opposition at every turn. Pima County Judge John Leonardo dismissed charges against Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox, sighting a conflict of interest and directing him to use an independent prosecutor. This is actually what Thomas originally wanted, but the Supervisors disallowed. The Board claims Thomas has no right to prosecute them unless they agree to it. They think it is appropriate for them to pick their own prosecutor. After all, they are all “honest people.” Under those rules, Charlie Manson could be serving burgers and fries at your local drive through, instead of serving time. In a perfect world, Stapley and the Board would share a cell with Manson.

The State Legislature is even trying to stop this abuse. Several bills have been introduced, but Stapley and the Board of Supervisors, using $300,000 of taxpayer money and the full authority of the Board derail all attempts to hold them accountable. Disregarding the importance of the other constitutional county officers, some Republicans lacked the backbone to support the bill and do what is right. Maybe that’s because Stapley is stacking the legislature now with appointments to fill vacancies. Rumor has it they must pass his litmus test and agree to side with him over Thomas and Arpaio and support an 18% sales tax increase. But then, the Supervisors are all “honorable people.”

Join Our Mailing List

A m e r i c a n P o s t – G a z e t t e

Distributed by C O M M O N S E N S E , in Arizona

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Republic reporter Yvonne Wingett skews coverage due to her cozy relationship with Supervisors


The Arizona Republic ran a front-page story on a court decision yesterday which held that County Attorney Andrew Thomas could not prosecute corrupt Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox, but outside special prosecutors could.
(http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/02/25/20100225wilcox0225.html)
Unfortunately the article was so slanted it sounded like it came from the Supervisors’ press secretary, Richard DeUriarte. Oh, that’s right, he used to work for the Republic as an editorial page writer, no wonder.  Arizona Republic Reporter Yvonne Wingett, who hangs out frequently at the Supervisors’ office palling around with DeUriarte, is already well-known for her slanted articles defending the corrupt Supervisors. Yet the Republic does not include any kind of disclaimer next to her articles about this cozy relationship, and she continues to write articles that leave out half the facts.

Wingett’s article claims that County Attorney Andrew Thomas suffered a defeat in court yesterday when Judge Leonardo threw out the indictment of Supervisor Wilcox. This characterization was not accurate. Even the more liberal columnists at the Republic, E.J. Montini and Laurie Roberts, have gotten it right and realize that this is about the Supervisors trying to do everything they can to avoid prosecution. (http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/EJMontini/74741 ) The Supervisors have even tried to block the appointment of Special Prosecutors (which in their minds would ostensibly avoid any “conflict of interest” – -a “conflict of interest” they manufactured by having their hand-picked attorney Tom Irvine, former attorney for the Democrat Party, represent BOTH the judges and the Supervisors). Since the judge’s decision stops them from blocking a Special Prosecutor any longer, E.J. Montini described yesterday’s decision as Judge Leonardo giving Thomas what he wanted – the prosecutions should be handled by a Special Prosecutor.

Wingett’s article made it sound like a defeat for Thomas, when in reality, it was more of the same – biased liberal judges stalling Thomas’s attempts to prosecute two corrupt Supervisors. This is typical yellow journalism by Wingett – try to make something look like a major defeat for Thomas that is not, and plaster it on the front page. If Thomas or Arpaio have a major win, it is relegated to the back pages of the Valley and State section next to the obituaries.

Judge Leonardo berated Thomas and Arpaio for prosecuting the Supervisors in his decision. This is not surprising, considering  the cozy relationship the Supervisors have with judges due to their control over their budgets. Leonardo may be from Pinal County, but he knows the repercussions of attacking another county’s supervisors. If he has any hopes of ever becoming a higher-level state court judge, he knows he can’t look like he’s siding with the conservative Thomas and Arpaio. He did what he could in the situation: criticize Thomas and Arpaio, but allow the prosecution to continue. Leonardo didn’t address the fact that the Supervisors have had their judges hand-picked for them on the prosecutions of Wilcox and Stapley and the investigation of the corrupt $340 million court tower. Judge Daughton, who was handpicked out of retirement by liberal Presiding Judge Barbara Mundell, and responsible for letting the Supervisors steal away Thomas’s entire County Attorney civil division, has even had a complaint filed against him by an employee due to his obvious bias against Thomas. A Democrat, Daughton contributed to Thomas’s Democrat opponent for county attorney.

Wingett’s Republic article doesn’t tell you any of that. In fact, she deliberately leaves out facts the reader needs to know in order to understand the whole story. Her article repeats Leonardo’s accusation that Thomas is “trying to gain political advantage by prosecuting political opponents such as Wilcox.” Yet she doesn’t bring up the fact that the other half of these high-profile prosecutions of Supervisors involves Don Stapley (his photo was featured prominently in this article), a prolife Republican. Thomas filed the Stapley indictment first, the Wilcox indictment came later. Obviously, Thomas is not prosecuting Stapley for partisan points as Leonardo asserts. Judge Leonardo chose to make a political statement from the bench, he is using the bench for politicking.

Besides an initial indictment on 118 criminal counts for false reporting, Stapley has been indicted on 23 criminal counts for raising money for his campaign that he then spent on personal items instead: $6000 of these funds were spent at Bang and Olufson electronics, along with $1300 for hair implants, $400 for candle holders and $10,000 for furniture for his home. He also spent these funds, solicited as campaign money, to buy tickets to Broadway plays and movie theatres, flowers, grocery store bills, massages, department stores and trips for his family to Sundance, Utah to ski, a trip for his son and friends to Florida and a three-week vacation in Hawaii for his entire family at a beach house costing approximately $11,000.

Wilcox is accused of voting on giving taxpayer-funded government grants to the radical left wing activist organization Chicanos por la Causa, while accepting loans from the organization.

Don’t you wish you were a Supervisor so you could get away with this kind of white-collar crime and have the liberal judges and newspapers rush to your defense? It is a double standard that these well-connected Supervisors with a long history of corruption get away with  crimes because of their control over the judicial system.

Join Our Mailing List

We disagree with the court’s conclusion that our office has a conflict of interest and we will appeal that decision. We are encouraged that the court’s ruling authorizes the Maricopa County Attorney to appoint independent special prosecutors.

In accordance with that ruling we shall appoint special prosecutors to assume responsibility for the investigation of all matters relating to members of the Board of Supervisors and the Judiciary. This is what we have been seeking since the start of this investigation. However, the Board of Supervisors denied our repeated attempts to do so.  Had they facilitated the appointment of special prosecutors this protracted legal process would not have been necessary. We have also requested that the Board of Supervisors call a special meeting Friday to facilitate the appointment.

We are dismissing the criminal complaint against Judge Donahoe and the second Stapley indictment without prejudice pending the outcome of the appeal of the court’s decision and the appointment of special prosecutors.

Thomas loses big time – but wins

by E.J. Montini

Everything about the decision rendered by Judge John Leonardo appears to be a legal smack down of Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas.

He dismisses charges against Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox. He chides Thomas for conflict of interest and for bullying. For using his office to go after political enemies.

Then, at the very end of his ruling, after slamming Thomas for roughly eight pages, he gives the county attorney EXACTLY what he wants.

The judge decides that he will not prevent Thomas from appointing a “new independent prosecutor.”

The judge writes, “The MCA may appoint a special independent prosecutor on the condition that the new prosecutor is not independently subject to disqualification, and that the MCAO and the MCA relinquish total control of the investigation and prosecution of Defendant to the special prosecutor and refrain from any further participation in these matters.”

A few days ago, perhaps sensing that such a ruling might be in the offing, Thomas’s assistant Barnett Lotstein told me that if the judge were to say that Thomas must appoint a special prosecutor that he would be giving Thomas “what we been asking for all along.”

It’s uncertain exactly how such a prosecutor can or would be appointed, given all the conflicts that everyone has. But it seems to suggest that the case hasn’t gone away.

It should. Thomas should drop it. He never should have pursued it in the first place. But doing the right thing hasn’t been much of a priority in the feud between the prosecutor and county supervisors.

Meaning, I guess, that today’s ruling was a complete loss for Thomas’s office … except for the part where they won.

E.J. Montini writes for the Arizona Republic

A m e r i c a n P o s t – G a z e t t e

Distributed by C O M M O N S E N S E , in Arizona

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Maricopa County Supervisors running amok
Scheming to block mandated election

By Laurie Roberts, Arizona Republic

Apparently, the good folks who run this county don’t have a set of Arizona Revised Statutes.

If they did, Andy Thomas and his top aides wouldn’t be wheeling around town in cars paid for with the public dime.  But that outrageous transgression pales in comparison to what it appears the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors may be contemplating.

As everybody on the planet knows by now, Thomas is making plans to abandon his office in order to seek better digs over at the state AG’s office. To do that, he’ll have to resign by May.

State law allows the Board of Supervisors to then appoint another Republican to replace him.Of course, there is no way the Sups should touch that job, given that two of its five members are under indictment and would essentially be selecting their own prosecutor. Thomas is correct to assert that neutral party (retired Supreme Court Chief Justice Ruth McGregor maybe?) should take over that job.

But even if the supervisors do go against good sense and appearances of a conflict, it seems there may be some private talk under way about how to get around state law – and those pesky people who might want a say in who will run prosecutions in this state for the next two years. Voters, I mean.

In a story this morning, Wade Swanson, the county’s director of general-litigation services, hinted that the supervisors may not be putting Thomas’ job up to a public vote this fall. Here’s an excerpt from the story, by Republic reporters Mike Kiefer and Yvonne Wingett:

“Swanson said county officials are concerned Thomas’ successor would not have enough time to gather thousands of signatures necessary to appear on a ballot. Swanson also confirmed that attorneys are looking at the succession matter but would not release related documents to The Arizona Republic, citing attorney-client privilege. Swanson said contract attorney Tom Irvine has been asked “to find an appropriate expert in this area.”

I don’t know what “an appropriate expert is”.  I do, however, know what the law says.

ARS 16-230. Vacancy in certain state or county offices; election
If a county office becomes vacant, the board of supervisors shall appoint a person of the same political party as the person vacating the office to fill the portion of the term until the next regular general election. If the vacancy occurs within the first two years of the term, and before the date on which a nomination paper is required to be filed as prescribed by section 16-311, a primary election shall be held as otherwise provided by law to determine candidates to fill the unexpired term. At the next regular general election, the person elected shall fill the remainder of the unexpired term of the vacant office.

It doesn’t say if a vacancy occurs within the first two years of the term, a primary election can be held.  It says it shall be held.  If Thomas resigns before the date on which nomination petitions must be filed, the supervisors must let voters have their say.

If Swanson believes Thomas is gaming the system to get his own guy in there, well I’m pretty sure the county sups know how to play games, too, with their own guys.

Or, they can do the sane thing and turn this particular appointment over to someone who doesn’t have a dog in this fight.

Now, can I send the county a bill for this studied legal opinion?

Laurie Roberts is a columnist for The Arizona Republic.

Join Our Mailing List

by Byron Schlomach Ph.D.
Goldwater Institute
 
Today, the Arizona Senate Committee on Appropriations will consider an important measure from Senator Jonathon Paton which would require all levels of government (including cities, towns, counties, school districts) to disclose in detail how they spend taxpayer money. It would also require the state to maintain a website where anyone could get quick access to information on every government in Arizona that has the power to levy taxes on them. Those governments would post details on a website about every expenditure and tax revenue collected, like an online checkbook register for city hall or the county courthouse.

This bill also would require government agencies and departments to establish performance benchmarks and list them for the public to review. Accurate crime statistics and details about county prosecutions would have to be reported as well.

For little cost, information about government operations can be made available 24 hours a day to people researching on their home computers or even on their cell phones. Most local governments have websites now, but the information they post often is so general that it doesn’t provide any real insight into how it conducts the people’s business.

The primary objection to these websites is that they will be costly to create and maintain. But experience proves otherwise. State Treasurer Dean Martin launched a transparency website in the midst of budget cuts, and states like Virginia, South Carolina, Kansas and Texas put spending information online using only existing resources. Nebraska created its spending transparency website, which does much of what this bill would require, for only $40,000. Some software companies, like ProcureNetworks, are even offering software to government agencies for free.

I have a question for those who use cost as a reason to oppose spending transparency: considering the recent declines in government revenue, how can we afford not to engage citizens more comprehensively in determining spending priorities and hunting down new efficiencies?

Taxpayers who foot government’s bills deserve the widest possible access to information on how their money is spent. Perhaps then Thomas Jefferson’s vision will be fully realized.

Dr. Byron Schlomach is an economist and the director of the Center for Economic Prosperity at the Goldwater Institute.

Next Page »