Re: 'eating their young'? Oh, well...

From the get-go, tonight's Pima County Democratic Party meeting had the feeling of a showdown on Prop 401, and it was.

The room was tense as each member of the Executive Committee spoke for the allotted 2 minutes, and there was no call to the audience. Most people passed or said just a few words. Tom Prezelski and Jim Hannley, both EC members and officers in the Protect Local Control No on Prop 401, spoke eloquently against the measure.

Chairman and Prop 401 supported Jeff Rogers gave the history of the measure; first the Democrats were working with the City Council on a strong mayor charter change, but eventually he folded his efforts into those of the Southern Arizona Leadership Council (SALC), who was proposing strong city manager charter changes.

One young EC member read excerpts from a letter from the three City Council members who stood with their constituents and voted against the charter changes back in July. He asked that the EC "not throw them under the bus."

In the end, the mostly white, mostly male, mostly over 60 Democratic EC voted 19 yes, 5 no, and 1 abstain to endorse Prop 401.

Will the Democrats 'eat their young' tonight?

Jon Stewart often says that one of the biggest differences between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans (being more homogeneous) are able to keep their base marching forward in lock step, while the Democrats (who represent many diverse interests) often devolve into squabbling and "eat their young".

Tonight, I'm afraid the Pima Dems will "eat their young"-- or at least a few City Council members. Earlier in the summer, the Pima County Democratic Party Executive Committee voted to officially remain neutral on Prop 401, the City of Tucson proposed charter changes.

This was a wise decision, since the Democratic-controlled City Council vote was split on this issue back in July. Council Members Richard Fimbres, Karin Ulich, and Regina Romero listened to their constituents at well-attended public forums and voted not to send the charter changes to the ballot. Blue Dog Democrats Paul Cunningham and Shirley Scott sided with Republicans Steve Kozachik and Mayor Bob Walkup and voted successfully to send the initiative (now Prop 401) to the ballot.

Even though the Pima Dems officially remained neutral on the issue, Party Chair and local lawyer Jeff Rogers and Vice Chair and Ward 2 City Council aide Katie Bolger have been actively hawking Prop 401 for the corporatists of Southern Arizona Leadership Council (SALC). In addition, according to Prop 401's campaign finance reports, Bolger has been paid $2000 for her pro-Prop 401 lobbying efforts.

This is a free country, and I respect Rogers' and Bolger's right to have their own opinions and speak out for or against political initiatives-- as private citizens.

But tonight's Executive Committee meeting is another matter.

Through what appear to be parliamentary machinations, the Pima Dems Executive Committee will re-vote whether or not to endorse Prop 401 tonight at the Democratic Headquarters.

Rehashing and re-voting the Prop 401 endorsement is a waste of time. This is like rearranging the deck chairs as the Titanic sinks.

Workers and the middle class are under siege in Arizona and nationwide. It's time for the Democrats to march in lock step to elect as many Democrats as possible and save our country from extremists-- not devolve into cannibalism.

Community residents want more time, more inclusiveness in charter change process

At Thursday's combined Wards 1 and 5 public hearing, the message was loud and clear: The city should take more time and include more stakeholders in the process to change the city's charter.

Approximately 50 community residents and neighborhood leaders attended the hearing hosted by City Council members Regina Romero (Ward 1) and Richard Fimbres (Ward 5). Although she hosted her own public hearing earlier in the week, City Councilwoman Shirley Scott (Ward 4) also came to listen to south and west side residents.

The evening began with presentations by Pima County Democratic Party chair Jeff Rogers (above), who talked about forms of government and the need to update Tucson's charter; Southern Arizona Leadership Council consultant Jim Kaiser, who reviewed SALC's proposed changes to the charter; and City Attorney Mike Rankin, who reviewed the specific charter text changes.

Following these formal presentations, several neighborhood leaders, political activists, and residents took to the microphone.

Former City Councilman Steve Leal led the public comment portion of the evening by admonishing the current City Council to retain the system of checks and balances in city government and not relinquish their power to the city manager. Among other things, SALC's proposed charter changes would strengthen the role of the unelected city manager by eliminating civil service protection for several upper-level city positions and giving the city manager the power to hire and fire key personnel without the consent of the City Council.

Leal warned that concentrating power under an unelected manager would weaken the city's elected government and distance it from the voters.

Who holds the power of government, dissatisfaction with the lack of inclusiveness in the charter change process, and a general distrust of the business leaders who comprise SALC were three themes that echoed throughout the evening.

"This whole thing is about power-- who has it, who doesn't, and who wants it," said Angie Quiroz, president of the Santa Rita Park neighborhood.

"This is not about governance. It's about the balance of power," said Mark Mayer, Ward 6 resident. Mayer and several other Ward 6 citizens attended the Ward 1-5 meeting because Ward 6's Steve Kozachik, the City Council's sole Republican, decided not to hold public hearings on the charter changes.

"We know the relationship that the SALC business leaders have with their workers and the unions," remarked Jim Hannley, president of the El Rio Neighborhood and political activist. "And they wonder why we don't trust them?"

"Be careful that we are not privatizing city government through the back door," warned community activist Delores Grayam, who likened this process to the gradual privatization of education in Arizona.

"We're spending an enormous about of money [to put this on the ballot], and the question is: Is this going to improve the city?" asked Ward 6 resident Bob Clark. He and others suggested having the charter change to increase the mayor and council's salaries and the proposed 1/2 cent hike in city sales tax on the ballot together could torpedo both measures. Even though the salary increases are budget neutral, voters may think the two initiatives are linked and vote both down.

Repeatedly speakers told the City Council to slow the process down, gather more community input, and delay the charter changes beyond the November 2010 election. Unbundling the four charter changes also was suggested several times by residents and by Pima County Recorder F. Ann Rodriguez, who manages the local election process.

Rodriguez warned that if voters don't like one item in the bundle, they will vote "no" on the group of charter changes. Indeed, this was evident in last night's public testimony; people liked some suggestions but not others. For example, most speakers acknowledged that the mayor and council positions should be full-time and earn full-time pay, but many disliked giving the city manager more power. The pros and cons of a strong mayor vs strong city manager form of government also was discussed.

According to the Arizona Daily Star, the Ward 3 Councilwoman Karin Ulich heard much the same messages at her charter change public hearing the night before.

For a recap of the Ward 1-5 hearing, check Tucson Channel 12 who interviewed community residents and taped the public event.

On Wednesday, July 7 the Tucson City Council will decide whether to put the City Charter changes on the November 2010 ballot.

This article originally appeared in my Progressive Examiner column.

Prop 200 forum: Fear mongering and guilt vs fiscal responsibility

Monday night's Proposition 200 forum was a rousing-- and a bit contentious-- political debate.

Three local news media celebrities--Bill Buckmaster from KUAT, Ann Brown from the Arizona Daily Star, and Jim Nintzel from the Tucson Weekly--asked questions of four Proposition 200 supporters and opponents. Brain Delfs of the Tucson Firefighters Association and Jon Justice, a local right-wing radio host, spoke in favor of Prop 200. Brandon Patrick, organizer of Don't Hand Cuff Tucson, and Jeff Rogers, Pima Democratic Party chair, spoke against Prop 200.

For the most part, the players stuck to their media messages with Patrick and Rogers beating the unfunded mandate drum, while Delfs and Justice ducked the funding issue and tugged at audience heart strings with crime stories.

Currently, public safety is the largest part of the city's budget, with 64% of the funding. Prop 200 calls for a change in the city's charter which would mandate automatic funding of police and fire at a rate proportional to the population. According to Rogers, the only city in the country to enact such a charter change is Aurora, Colorado, and they are now bankrupt. Patrick and Rogers contend that this would be Tucson's fate if Prop 200 were adopted. They made it clear that they support funding for police and fire departments but take issue with the mechanism of funding, particularly when the city and the country are in a recession.

Delfs refused to address the funding issue, saying that "with growth, the funds will be there." Justice rattled off a list of city expenditures that he would cut completely or reduce--including Access Tucson, funding for the arts, children's programs, and the zoo-- in the name of public safety.

Justice also called Prop 200 opponents hypocrites because the Democratic Party supports the school funding propositions on the ballot but not Prop 200. Opponents in the audience chuckled when Delfs said that the school initiatives were not needed because "the state legislature has taken care of education." (Ironically, recreational programs, after-school activities, and education have been shown to reduce crime, anti-social youth behavior, and future incarcerations, but neither side mentioned these initiatives as a long-term prevention strategies.)

Justice made the most inflammatory statements of the evening. He repeatedly said that the Tucson City Council's priorities were "screwed up" and that Prop 200 was a way to hold them accountable. Specific funding of public safety via a charter change forces the City Council's hand, but I don't see how it "holds them accountable." He also tried to paint the Prop 200 opposition as a partisan battle. These statements appeared to be primarily hyperbole. The only specific example he gave of "screwed up priorities" was giving away city buildings to arts organizations for little or no rent (as if viable businesses would occupy some of these rundown dumps the artists now occupy). Judging from his website, Justice is using Prop 200 and Tucson City Coucil bashing to boost his popularity among right-wing radio listeners.

Patrick and Rogers said that the cuts outlined by Justice would be like "chipping away at an iceberg with a pick" because they would account for only $1-2 million.

After an hour, the forum ended abruptly with several audience members still waiting in line to ask questions. Nothing was resolved by the debate, but it was a worthwhile forum to discuss specifics and hammer out details. Thanks to Arizona Public Media and Cox Communications for their sponsorship.

This article originally appeared in my Progressive Examiner column. To view the accompanying slide show, check out this link.