Prop 401: The most polite forum... ever

The Feldman Neighborhood, which has a reputation for fiery politics, hosted the most polite community forum ever last night. Was it the gentle ambiance of the historic but hard-to-find St. Luke's Chapel, built by Josias Joesler. Or the lack of suits?

About a dozen citizens gathered in the chapel to discuss the pros and cons of Prop 401, the proposed changes to the Tucson City Charter. Local lawyer, environmentalist, and Tucson Charter Change Coalition (TC3) executive committee member, Mitch Coker spoke in favor of Prop 401. Political gadfly and former blogger, Luke Knipe represented Protect Local Control, the No on 401 committee.

The free-form, unstructured forum was dotted with controversy and consensus. There was major discussion of what the charter changes would fix, deceptive advertising by Prop 401 supporters, government accountability, the impact of shifting the election cycle, the pros and cons a stronger city manager, and the pay raises for politicians.

When asked what city government problems the charter changes would fix, neither Coker nor Shirley Kiser (one of the architects of Prop 401, along with her husband Jim Kiser) could answer the question. They waffled around what the charter changes would do but couldn't name any problems they would fix. I asked a follow-up question but still no specifics.

My point to them was that the Southern Arizona Leadership Council (SALC) has raised almost $50,000, talked with hundreds of people, and spent thousands of dollars on yard signs and a giant "Fix city government" billboard at the gateway to downtown. And they can't tell us what they want to "fix"?

Finally, since they couldn't come up with an answer, I said that I believe SALC is trying to "fix" the City Council. The proposed charter changes would dramatically weaken the City Council's power and influence over decision-making. Here's how: 1) electing the entire city government in one election (instead of stagger elections, as they are now) would allow moneyed forces (like SALC) to a sweep the entire Mayor and Council out in the same year; 2) the charter changes would take the City Council out of many hiring and firing decisions and give all authority to the unelected city manager; and 3) giving more power to the Mayor weakens the City Council.

Taking power away from the elected City Council reduces government accountability. Repeatedly Coker and Kiser gave examples of strong city manager cities that are "well run". The examples they gave were cities that had had the same unelected city manager for 10-20 years. It dawned on my later that the corporatists want an iron-clad impervious leader for the city; they want the City of Tucson to be run by a despot-- a CEO!

Unfortunately for them, we live in a democracy, and democracy is messy.

US corporations post 'near-historic' profits, as poverty and joblessness increase: Now what?

This week, the Huffington Post reported that corporate profits are at "near-historic" levels-- up 38% compared to the same time period a year ago.

It's a pretty disgusting article about how layoffs, outsourcing, and low interest rates have allowed corporatists to rake in the cash-- and hoard it-- rather than reinvest it, which would improve the nation's ecomomy.

"Since 2008, corporate profits increased 10 percent -- but revenue was down 6 percent, the WSJ [Wall Street Journal] says. To achieve the impressive quarterly results, companies have had, as the WSJ puts it, to "streamline" their operations. This means firing workers, outsourcing labor and shuttering unprofitable (or less profitable) divisions.

"The robust state of corporate profits presents a paradox: companies won't spend their money until the economy improves, but the economy won't improve until they spend their money. An increase in hiring, for example, would help drive a recovery. The New York Times reports this "chicken-and-egg" phenomenon, noting that near-zero interest rates have encouraged companies to borrow money and simply hoard it because, as the NYT puts it, 'they can.'"

This is a perfect example of how dysfunctional trickle down economic theory is.

Juxtapose this story about historic corporate profits with the stories about the widening wealth gap between rich and poor, rising poverty in most states, disappearing middle class, people living in vehicles, and states and cities going broke.

Given this scenario, how can Congressional Republicans continue to support tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and balk any time they are asked to extend unemployment?

How can Tea Party/Republicans like Sharon Angle (Nevada), Joe Miller (Alaska), and Jesse Kelly (Arizona) call for privatization of Social Security, elimination of the health care safety net, and elimimation of the national minimum wage? Angle, Miller, and Kelly are puppets of the corporatists. I can't believe that they honestly think dissolution of these programs would help the majority of Americans.

Privatization of Social Security would just give Wall Street's corporate gamblers more money to play with and another way to boost their historic profits even higher. Elimination of the health care safety net and the minimum wage and continued outsourcing of jobs would through the US into third-world status. It would be end of life as we know it. The former US middle class would become economic refugees.

UPDATE, October 6: Blog for Arizona's AZ Blue Meanie posted Update III: The New Corporate Business Model: Increase Profits, Not Jobs.

UPDATE, October 8: Diane Rehm's Friday News Roundup covers this story. (Diane, honey, mention my blog next time, OK?)

SALC distributes deceptive pro-Prop 401 mailer

As to be expected during election season, I am greeted with campaign ads in my mailbox nearly everyday.

Yesterday, I received the above pro-Prop 401 card (without the circles and numbers, of course). This is one deceptive ad; in fact the statements circled in blue are blatant lies. (The items circled in yellow can be dismissed as unsubstantiated public relations claims.)

Prop 401 does absolutely NOTHING to (1) streamline city government or (2) cut bureaucracy. Prop 401 changes some hiring and firing procedures, but these changes actually strengthen the city's bureaucracy by further consolidating power in the office of the unelected city manager. No bureaucratic positions are eliminated, no budgets are cut, and no departments are eliminated by Prop 401.

Regarding (3) hold bureaucrats accountable, I contend that only elected officials are accountable to the voters-- not bureaucrats. Less government accountability is my biggest beef with Prop 401. By taking power away from the Mayor and City Council (while at the same time more than doubling their salaries), Prop 401 strengthens bureaucracy. (Yes, with Prop 401, certain department heads will lose their civil service protection, but the bureaucrats in these positions never have been accountable to voters, so it's a bit of a red herring, in my opinion.)

So, I'd like to see the Southern Arizona Leadership Council (SALC) send out a mailer that tells what Prop 401 actually does:

1- Prop 401 more than doubles the salaries of the Mayor and Council, while diminishing their power.

2- Prop 401 changes hiring and firing processes to increase the power of the unelected city manager.

3- Prop 401 eliminates civil service protection for some department heads and allows the unelected city manager to more easily eliminate staff, which also increases his power.

4- Prop 401 eliminates the off-year elections, thus, enabling the election of the Mayor and all City Council members in the same year. (This saves money, but also potentially weakens our elected officials. SALC members have big bucks; if the entire city government is up for election in the same year, they could easily flood the election with money in an attempt to take over the Democratically-controlled City Council in one fell swoop.)

The bottomline is that Prop 401 is an attempt by big business to weaken and, therefore, control Tucson city government (the way they control the Arizona Legislature). These corporatists are using money and lies to sway your vote.

One look at the Yes on Prop 401 campaign finance reports tells us who the puppeteer is behind the curtain-- big business. Yes on Prop 401 has received a handful of $100 donations, but by far the donations in support of Prop 401 are $500- $10,000 donations from businesses. What are they doing with these funds? Yes on Prop 401 has paid thousands of dollars to a public relations firm, a marketing firm, and a paid lobbyist-- to sway your vote.

In stark contract, the grassroots, all-volunteer Protect Local Control Vote No on Prop 401 group has $70 in the bank.

Don't buy the lie. Vote NO on Prop 401.

P.S.-- As a snarky side note to the PR firm, you've got a run-on sentence in the blue section at the top. :)

UPDATE October 4: The Arizona Daily Star posted a story about the groups for and against Prop 401. They reported that as of last week, Prop 401 supporters have raised $47.000, while the Protect Local Control committee has raised $320.

Neighborhood groups hold community forums on Props 400-401

Today, September 30, and Monday, October 4, two neighborhood groups will host community forums on Propositions 400 and 401, which will be on the November ballot.

Prop 400 would increase the city's sales tax to pay for core services (police, fire, parks) (1, 2), and Prop 401 would change the city's charter (1,2).

The Tucson City Council voted in July to allow both initiatives to be put on the ballot. The sales tax increase would help the city balance its budget, but it has been a contentious issue on the City Council, with Councilman Steve Kozachik offering alternative Plans C and D to City Manager Mike Letcher's Plans A (Prop 400) or Plan B (15% across the board cuts).

Prop 401, although more esoteric, also has been very contentious. Prop 401 is the baby of the Southern Arizona Leadership Council (SALC); this big business group claims that the City Charter should be changed because city government doesn't run efficiently* and because it's old. The grassroots opposition to Prop 401 takes issue with the huge Mayor and Council pay increases that are included. (I am against Prop 401 because it increases the power of the city's bureaucracy [particularly the unelected city manager] and, therefore, makes government less accountable.)

Want to learn more about these initiatives, ask questions, or voice your opinion? Check out one of these forums. The last Props 400-401 forum, hosted by Ward 6, was a standing-room-only event (above). (Kozachik called the event "lively;" other attendees described it as wild political theater.)

Southside
Tonight, the Southside Neighborhood Association Presidential Partnership (SNAPP) will host a community forum on both Props 400 and 401 from 6-8 p.m. The event will be at the El Pueblo Activity Center Multi Purpose Room, 101 W. Irvington Road. The entrance to the parking lot is south of Irvington Road on Nogales Highway.

University area
On October 4, the Feldman Neighborhood Association will host a community forum on only Prop 401, beginning at 6:30 p.m. The event will be at the chapel of St. Luke's Home at Lee and N. First Ave.

* Regarding the efficiency of city government: well, anyone who has been following the downtown hotel hell (1, 2, 3, 4) or the other Rio Nuevo real estate deals could make a case for inefficiency. But, personally, I don't think bigger bureaucracy is going to fix it. I believe we need strong leadership. Prop 401 should have been broken up, which would have allowed people to vote for the parts they favor.

The ramifications of wealth disparity: Robert Reich gets it

Robert Reich is one of my heroes. He gets it (unlike the delusional Tea Partiers who also were on National Public Radio [NPR] this morning, but more on those jokers later).

Here is a quote from his interview today on NPR. (Check out the link for the whole interview.)

"[The middle class] can't go deeper and deeper into debt. They can't work longer hours. They've exhausted all of their coping mechanisms," he says. "And people at the top are taking home so much that they are almost inevitably going to speculate in stocks or commodities or whatever the speculative vehicles are going to be. ... Unless we understand the relationship between the extraordinary concentration of income and wealth we have this in country and the failure of the economy to rebound, we are going to be destined for many, many years of high unemployment, anemic job recoveries and then periods of booms and busts that may even dwarf what we just had."

We want those 8 million jobs back

Don't forget, Ed Schultz's One Nation Working Together March is this Saturday, October 2, in Washington, DC.

The Nation recently posted a great background piece-- For Jobs, Justice, and Education. In a nutshell, the article talks about the plight of working families in America, tone-deaf Republican and Blue Dog Democrats who are fighting for the rich (instead of working for workers), and the rationale behind the march.

Here is a small excerpt.

"...we should be investing in rebuilding America, thereby helping to close the jobs gap, which will then help close the budget gap.

"Instead, as we careen toward a possible double-dip recession and a second round of devastating home foreclosures, the extreme right-wing media machine is desperately trying to discredit the idea that America's government can and should move aggressively to create more jobs...

"Nothing they say should persuade our leaders to throw America's working families under the bus. We are in the middle of the biggest economic crisis in half a century. Through its negligence and recklessness, Wall Street has already forced a brutal austerity program on Main Street. The role of America's government is to mitigate its effects and reverse the damage, not to make things worse by heaping suffering on top of suffering. This is not the time to abandon schools, shut down clinics, ignore crumbling infrastructure and forego job creation. This is not the time to take more away from families and communities that are already losing so much. We don't need a public austerity program on top of the private sector–imposed austerity that we are already enduring.

"But some members of Congress apparently think they should focus on closing the federal budget gap, even if it means letting millions more American families tumble. They are mistaken. America's workers find themselves in a deep hole. You don't cut your way out of a hole. You grow your way out of a hole. We can afford to invest more in America's long-term success. We are the wealthiest nation in the world. We should not be giving billions of dollars to companies like Halliburton abroad, while closing hospitals at home.

"...the American people finally will be able to choose between two movements: one that wants to demagogue problems and divide us, and another that wants to promote solutions and unite America."

Greg Krino: One scary guy

If you drive around midtown Tucson, you can't help but see Republican Greg Krino's smiling white face on hundreds of very expensive, 4-color, illegal signs (1,2).

Krino is an opportunistic, young Republican write-in candidate challenging Democrat Paula Aboud for her state senate seat in LD28. Aboud and Krino are in a four-way race with former state Representative Ted Downing and Green Party activist Dave Ewoldt.

Normally, Republicans don't bother with LD28 because it is overwhelmingly Democratic-- "about 36,000 Democrats, 22,000 Republicans and 24,000 others spread out across the political spectrum," according to the Tucson Weekly.

While Aboud, Downing, and Ewoldt duking it out from the center to the far left, Krino has the extreme far right all to himself. You know all those things that progressives don't like about the current legislature and Governor Jan Brewer? Let me refresh your memory, in case you have suppressed the last 2 legislative sessions: no support or core services for families, kids, or the poor; minimalist public health; privatization of everything including education, prisons, and parks; give-aways (AKA tax breaks) to the rich and to hell with everyone else; demonization of undocumented workers, etc.

Well, Krino marches in lock step with these Republican core ideas-- hence my headline. He's a scary guy.

I heard him on the John C. Scott show the other day. People-- like former Congressman Jim Kolbe-- are saying that Krino is a "rising star" in the Republican party. When Scott asked him about his stance on issues, Krino said that government should get back to basics-- police, fire, and roads... period.

Yikes! You'll note all of the government services that are not on that list: education, prisons, public health, providing a safety net or support for the poor.

I know this "back to basics" is popular rhetoric amongst the tea bag types this year, but I seriously don't think people realize how this would impact them if these wing-nuts get elected.

As an aside, those 4-color signs are expensive. Obviously, this guy has big money behind him. The corporatists really like having the Arizona Legislature in their pocket.

UPDATE, October 8: Most of Krino's illegally-placed 4-color signs are gone from city streets now. You'll note his new illegally-placed signs are the standard red/black type, no 4-color smiling photo, and still no indication that he is an extremist Republican.

Is this the end of communism? Or the end of capitalism?

This week news outlets reported that a Chinese company may buy part of General Motors (GM). Apparently, GM sells more cars in China than in the US.

I don't know if this is some bizarre PR move or if GM just wants to show its connection with Chinese consumers or both, but National Public Radio reported that GM's Cadillac brand will be financing a film commemorating the Chinese Communist Revolution.

Ronald Reagan and Chairman Mao are rolling in their graves.

What's up with Chase Bank's website?

Officially, J. P. Morgan Chase's online banking website went down in the early hours of Tuesday, September 14-- affecting 16.6 million customers, including me. (Well, my employer, actually, since my money is in a local credit union.)

I have not been able to sign on to our small business Chase Bank account all week, and it's now Thursday-- day 4 of my personal Chase outage.

What's up with that?

Hey, Chase, I'm sure there are thousands of unemployed webmasters and web security experts out there. Maybe you need to hire more staff? Or different staff? Or English-speaking American staff? Or pay them better?

Get it together!

P.S., Chase, I don't believe that you don't know what caused this.

P.S.S., Also, while I have your attention, you need to hire more people for your "customer service" telephone lines. I have called you multiple times, and your "customer service" lines either ring and ring or are busy. Again, there are plenty of people looking for work. Hire someone! You obviously need more competent staff.

Tucson City Charter: 'It's old, so let's get rid of it.'

This morning Arizona Public Media aired a balanced report on Prop 401 by Robert Rappaport.

Several pro-401 corporate talking heads were interviewed, and Tom Prezelski, former state legislator and chair of the grassroots Protect Local Control coalition, provided the anti-401 opinion.

Two of the pro-401 group's arguments that were aired today don't hold much water in my opinion.

A representative from Cox Communications who was identified as the head of the Yes on 401 group pumped up the cost savings which would be earned from consolidated elections. (I can't give you her name because she is not identified on the Yes on 401 website. I think that it is telling that they do not name the officers of their committee on their website. Maybe the pro-401 group is not as diverse as they would lead us to believe. Just look at the parent company's membership list.)

The nameless head of Yes on 401 said that by having the entire Tucson City Council elected in the same year we would not only same money, but the Council would be more likely to work together, since they were elected in the same year. (Well, maybe, but I don't see much evidence of this in the Congress or the Arizona Legislature. That assertion is just unsubstantiated PR, in my opinion.)

What the nameless head of Yes on 401 is not saying is that by electing the entire City Council in the same year, forces with enough money could sweep the entire Council-- thanks to the corporate personhood/campaign finance ruling from the Roberts court. Who would have the money to do this? The corporatists from the Southern Arizona Leadership Council (SALC)-- Diamond Ventures, TEP, Jim Click, Chase Bank, O'Reilly Ventures, SW Gas, Tucson Realty and Trust, etc.-- the same people who are bringing you Prop 401. How convenient is that?

Another pro-401 argument that is regularly touted is the "it's-old-so-let's-get-rid-of-it" argument. Local lawyer Jeff Rogers offered that rationale this morning on the radio. Personally, I think this is the weakest argument the SALC corporatists have.

The Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the "Star Spangled Banner", the Statue of Liberty, the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, the works of Shakespeare, my Mom, etc., etc. (should I go on?) are all older than Tucson's City Charter. Should we throw them out "because they're old?"

Let's not be fooled by big money. Vote No on 401.

Buzz words abound at Prop 401 kick off

The weather is cooling down, just as the politics heats up in Tucson and across the nation.

Yesterday, the Yes on Prop 401 supporters held a press conference to formally kick off their campaign to change the Tucson city charter. As you may remember, I waxed poetic last spring about the City Charter Changes and why I opposed them then-- and still oppose them now. (Old stories linked here in chronological order 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.)

In the Arizona Daily Star and on the John C. Scott Show, the Southern Arizona Leadership Council (SALC)-- the corporatists who have been pushing for the City Charter Changes-- have been trumpeting the idea that the City Charter Changes have broad support-- from Tea Baggers to Democrats to unions and, of course, the rich white men who started this process.

Given the signage at the rally, I wonder how many of these people really understand what they are theoretically supporting. For example...

Do the unions understand that they are supporting a HUGE pay raise for mayor and council while their members are being furloughed and/or laid off? Also, by backing SALC, the unions are siding with the corporatists -- the dreaded management, as my steel worker Dad would have called them.

Do the tea baggers understand that those rally signs spouting catchy slogans like "Cut bureaucracy," "Demand accountability," "Cut costs" and "Streamline government" have absolutely NOTHING to do with the City Charter Changes? No bureaucracy is being cut; in fact bureaucracy will be strengthened and consolidated in the City Manager's office. There will be less accountability because the power will be with the manager-- not the elected officials. The only cost savings is in the consolidation of election cycles, but that money will be spent on the pay raises. (Hey, tea baggers, I know you are easily manipulated by the media, but you and the Libertarians should be more against this more than I am!)

Call me a Pollyanna, but I still believe in elected government and accountability to the people. For these reasons, boys and girls, I oppose Prop 401.

If these City Charter Changes pass in November, the most powerful person (mostly likely a white man) in Tucson will be the unelected city manager.

I believe that the city of Tucson could be run more efficiently, but making the city manager more powerful, paying the mayor and council more, scaring departments by eliminating their civil service protection, giving the mayor a tad more power is not going to do it, and shifting election cycles.

The current city government structure is flawed-- in my humble opinion-- because we have 7 people (city manager, mayor, and 5 council members) with about the same level of power + a gaggle of council and city staff also with some power. Consequently, we have a camel government -- one designed by committee.

Tucson has no Harry Truman. Tucson has no strong leader and no vision. Tucson has no one with the cojones to say, "The buck stops here."

Tucson needs a strong leader-- not another bureaucrat. Vote NO on 401!

Sky Bar out of touch with clientele on SB1070

What started as another xenophobic law proposed by wingnut Republican Russel Pearce, SB1070 could be labeled the Ultimate Law of Unintended Consequences.

In addition to helping our GED-toting, unelected governor vanquish her Republican primary opponents, the ill-conceived bill has become a national sensation, fodder for comedians, rationale for boycotts, and the deciding factor on where to buy pizza in Tucson.

In early July, the humanitarian group No More Deaths started We Mean Business, the business-friendly answer song to Congressman Raul Grijalva's call for boycotts of Arizona after passage of SB1070. Approximately 90 local businesses agreed to post anti-SB1070 We Mean Business or We Reject Racism signs in their establishments. The rationale was that flaming liberals like me who oppose SB1070 would know which businesses to frequent and which to... well... boycott. (For a list of these businesses and a map, click here.)

Given the huge economic impact of Mexican shoppers in Arizona-- $7.3 million per day-- it makes good business sense to oppose SB1070.

According to the No More Deaths website, businesses interested in participating in the We Reject Racism movement are asked to take the following three actions:

- Post the “We Reject Racism” sign to publicly oppose SB1070

- Not allow law enforcement into their business for the sole purpose of checking immigration status of people inside*

- Not financially supporting lawmakers who voted for SB1070

*Legally businesses have the right to prevent anyone from entering or ask them to leave. The exception for law enforcement is if they have a warrant for someone inside or believe an individual is an immediate danger to the public.

Tony Vaccaro, owner of Brooklyn's Pizza and the adjoining Sky Bar on 4th Avenue, was one of the Tucson businessmen who initially supported We Mean Business 2 weeks ago. In a turn of events, Vaccaro took the We Mean Business signs down this week and contacted the Arizona Daily Star stating his flip-flop support of SB1070.

Vaccaro is quoted in the Star as saying that after having read SB1070, he now agrees with it. The Star also quotes Vaccaro as saying, "...I do not believe that businesses should get involved in politics. That is for individuals, politicians and lobby groups. I feel that I have let some of my customers down by getting involved in the SB 1070 debate."

Businesses shouldn't get involved in politics? Has this guy been living in a cave? The corporatists control our elected officials, run our country-- and are trying to run our city!

I find it hard to believe that he really thinks he let his customers down by opposing SB1070 and racism. Vaccaro's 2 businesses-- Brooklyn's Pizza and Sky Bar-- are in the heart of the 4th Ave shopping district-- nestled between the University of Arizona, the downtown arts district, and Tucson High School (whose student population is less than 50% Anglo).

Personally, I liked (note the past tense) Sky Bar. The open, airy venue features affordable pizza and adult beverages, theme nights, eclectic live music, and dancing. The downtown crowd is far from white bread-- being diverse in race, ethnicity, age, and sexual orientation. Vaccaro's new position on SB1070 is out of step with them.

Artists for Action, another anti-SB1070 movement that popped up in July, may give Vaccaro-- who hires dozens of musicians to play at his club and whose clientele includes local artists-- some heart burn.

Spearheaded by Calexico's John Convertino and Joey Burns, Artists for Action urges artists and musicians to take a stand against SB1070 and help educate the public. The group is not advocating boycotts; in fact, it is encouraging out-of-state musicians to come to Arizona and voice their opposition to SB1070 -- rather than boycotting in protest.

Who will win this tug of war? Hopefully, not the xenophobes or those who exploit immigrants (documented or not).

Council sends sales tax and charter changes to Nov ballot

An overflow crowd attended yesterday's Tucson City Council meeting to offer opinions and hear decisions on 3 major issues: a half-cent increase in the cap on city sales tax, a major revision to the Land Use Code, and proposed changes to the City Charter.

With split decisions, both the increase in the sales tax cap and the charter changes will be on the November 2010 ballot.

On the sales tax vote, Councilmen Steve Kozachik and Paul Cunningham were the dissenters. If voters approve raising the cap on city sales tax in November, this does not actually raise the sales tax; it allows for it to be increased in the future.

On the charter changes, Council members Regina Romero, Richard Fimbres, and Karin Ulich followed the will of the people they represent and voted "no." At public hearings in Wards 1, 3, and 5, there was strong opposition from neighborhoods and city residents against the City Charter changes proposed by business leaders represented by the Southern Arizona Leadership Council.

Only the changes in the Land Use Code received unanimous support from the Council. Several members said they were supporting these changes because it will help rid our city of blighted buildings by speeding development.

Mayor Bob Walkup remarked that the vote on the Land Use Code should answer detractors that call the city government unfriendly to business.

For more detailed information, check out the Arizona Daily Star or watch the lengthy meeting at Tucson Channel 12.

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.

SALC: Show us the money

Due to their latest proposal to alter the Tucson City Charter, I have written several articles about the Southern Arizona Leadership Council (SALC) recently (1, 2, 3, 4).

Consequently, I have become a student of SALC's website and related media coverage of SALC.

From a public relations standpoint, SALC's website is gorgeous-- very professional with well-executed corporate photography, a warm-and-fuzzy mission statement, and links to their initiatives. Unfortunately, it is sorely out date and lacks real content, current news, and details regarding where their money comes from and how it is spent.

For a group that has sooooooo much corporate money behind it, one item that is strangely absent from their website is their balance sheet. The only mention of funding is on the FAQ page...

Where does SALC get its money?
SALC is funded solely through membership dues. Additional contributions from members and others help to finance projects undertaken by the group.

The 2008 "annual report" is the most recent one on their website, and it is just a PR piece-- not really an annual report, which would include an audited financial statement. There are no dollar signs in that document. And, besides, where is the 2009 annual report? 2010 is half over!

Um, guys, how do you spell "efficiency and transparency"? SALC has been using the let's-bring-efficiency-to-government-because-business-knows-best mantra to support their push for changes to the TucsonCity Charter. Ironically, until just a few days ago, their website listed 2008 accomplishments under their "Recent Successes" tab, which has now been fixed. The most recent news item on their website is dated November 12, 2009.

I don't often quote Jesus, but "let he who is without sin [read inefficiency] cast the first stone."

I, for one, would like to see how much money SALC brings in, where it comes from, and how their funds are distributed across their different initiatives. For such a high-profile group, their website should provide more real information about their initiatives.

For example, their Tucson Values Teachers initiative sounds highly worthwhile on the surface. One of their goals is "to attract, retain and support the very best teachers for Tucson’s children." I am all for that. I followed the link (with the help of Google, since the link on SALC's page was broken) to the Tucson Values Teachers (TVT) website.

Under the "Business" tab, TVT gives suggestions on how business can get involved in improving education. Cool. Below is the list. (I added the numbers; otherwise the text is verbatim from TVT.)

HERE ARE OTHER SUGGESTIONS - FOR BUSINESSES AND THE COMMUNITY - ON HOW TO GET STEP UP, AND JOIN TEAM TVT:

1. The next time you're at the grocery store, buy an extra notebook, a pack of pencils or a box of crayons for a classroom.

2. Instead of another mug, give a teacher a gift card to an office supply store.

3. Help out on a class field trip.

4. Help elect legislative leaders that support a robust educational system.

5. Join the fight to secure higher pay for K-12 teachers.

6. Read to a child after school.

7. Donate to TVT at TucsonValuesTeachers.org.

8. Give a teacher a summer job.

9. Offer underpaid teachers a discount on services or products at your business.

10. Invite a TVT representative to speak at your association's next meeting.

11. Stay in the loop - sign up for our e-mail list at TucsonValuesTeachers.org

12. Volunteer to be part of the TVT Speaker's Bureau and spread the word on how we can better value our K-12 teachers.

13. Tell a teacher how much you appreciate what they do.

Don't get me wrong, these are all great suggestions, but let's consider the source. SALC membership includes some of the richest people in Southern Arizona, and their suggestions on how businesses can help schools include ideas like buying an extra notebook, a pack of pencils or a box of crayons for a classroom or giving a gift card to a teacher. Give me a break. These guys have the money to build a frickin' school, and they are suggesting that businesses buy a notebook?! Most of these suggestions are the ones that desperate school teachers give to parents and grandparents-- not to corporate giants. (Come on, open up those coin purses.)

Considering that their membership includes starve-the-beast Republicans like Bruce Ash, Jim Click, and John Munger, I was shocked to see #4 Help elect legislative leaders that support a robust educational system and #5 Join the fight to secure higher pay for K-12 teachers on their list of suggestions on how business can improve education.

Where was SALC when the Republican governor and legislature decimated K-12 and university budgets and forced the lay-off of hundreds of teachers? Where were they when adult education was eliminated? Oddly silent, I believe. SALC says they want to improve our region's economic climate. Arizona will continue to slide into the abyss as long as we underfund and undervalue education.

On the TVT page, I also was surprised to see this group of weathly corporatists (who keep their organization's financing and expenditures secret) ask for donations (#7).

Donations for what?

Where does the money go?

October 2010 Update: If you want to see one way the big business members of SALC spend their money, check out the SALC-backed Prop 401 campaign finance reports.

Is the Tucson City Council about to be 'swift-boated'?

Will the Southern Arizona Leadership Council (SALC) be successful in changing our city, our City Council, and life as we know it in the bluest part of Arizona? It could happen...

Absurd, you say? How could this small group of right-wing corporatists accomplish such a feat? By proposing City Charter changes that will weaken elected government in Tucson and further distance it from the voters.

SALC is a special interest group comprised of regional-to-multi-national corporatists who operate in Southern Arizona (eg, Tucson Electric Power, Diamond Enterprises, Jim Click, Raytheon, you get the picture). They are trying to control and restructure local government by changing the City Charter. In 2009, this same tactic was used by proponents of the failed Prop 200 initiative, which was resoundingly defeated by voters, despite overwhelming financial support by donors, including at least one SALC member.

Currently, SALC is lobbying the Tucson City Council to put a package of four changes to the City Charter on the November 2010 ballot. Their rationale is that these charter changes will bring "efficiency" to city government. (In reality, the changes will make it easier for special interest groups like SALC to influence governmental decision-making. Under the proposed new system the only person they would have to schmooze is the City Manager because the City Council members and the neighborhoods they represent would become weaker.)

What is most dangerous about these proposed changes is not the esoteric strong City Manager or strong Mayor debate, but the WIIFMs SALC has added to the package to entice the City Council's support.

City Council members are paid a measly $24,000 per year for what is supposed to be a part-time job. Included in the SALC package is a proposal to make the Mayor and Council positions full-time and to increase their renumeration significantly and bring it in line with that of the Pima County Supervisors. Two cost-neutral proposals have been floated to pay for this very attractive WIIFM: 1) each City Council member should eliminate a staff person to pay for the raise or 2) the city should eliminate off-year elections for part of the City Council. (In other words, voters would elect the entire council in the same election year.)

Let me say that I totally agree the Mayor and Council positions should be full-time, and the poor souls who volunteer to do these high-stress, thankless jobs should be paid better. BUT this is the wrong way to go about this pay increase and, more importantly, the wrong time for the City Council to be enabling a raises for themselves.

In the past year, severe budget shortfalls have forced the City Council to dramatically reduce funding for most city programs, people have been laid-off, and many workers have been forced to take unpaid furlough days.

I can hear the 2012 commercials now... [voice over] When the City of Tucson was in the depths of historic budget deficits and city workers were being laid-off, what did the Democratically-controlled City Council do? They increased their positions to full-time and gave themselves a raise! (You're right. This fantasy commercial text is not exactly true, but two years from now only the true political wonks will remember how this all came down.)

Here comes the really scary part. Since the current charter change proposal includes the provision for eliminating off-year elections, the entire City Council will be up for re-election in 2012. The five neighborhood-friendly, arts-friendly, progressive Democrats on the City Council could be swift-boated right out of office by the Republican propaganda machine.

This past Tuesday, the Tucson Mayor and Council voted to postpone the vote on whether or not the SALC-initiated charter changes should be on the November ballot to the last possible day for a decision-- July 7.

In the meantime, there will be Ward-wide public hearings on this proposal. I urge you strongly to attend the meeting in your Ward and/or to call or e-mail your City Council member and tell them to deep-six SALC's charter changes.

In the future, if SALC wants changes to the City Charter (and they probably will), they should collect signatures like everyone else-- instead of asking the City Council to do the heavy lifting (and take the heat later).

City to hold public hearings on charter changes

Tucson's City Council Chambers were filled with businessmen in suits and activists in blue jeans, as business leaders and neighborhood leaders squared off on the topic of changes to Tucson's charter.

For more than a year, corporatists represented by the Southern Arizona Leadership Council (SALC) have been promoting changes to Tucson's Charter as a strategy to manipulate local government and circumvent elected officials. (This is the same group that got the failed Prop 200 charter change initiative on the ballot in the fall of 2009.)

This year, SALC is pushing the Tucson City Council to place a set of four proposed charter changes on the ballot. These changes would:

• Give the city manager greater hire-and-fire authority over some top city department heads and remove the City Council checks-and-balances authority.

• Increase the number of wards by two.

• Give the Mayor (who currently is just a figure head) more voting power.

• Change the Mayor and Council positions from part-time to full-time and increase their pay to put it in line with that of the Pima County Supervisors.

Businessmen representing SALC claim that these changes will make the city more efficient because it will strengthen the City Manager's position (and weaken the City Council, although they are not specifically saying that.)

Changing Tucson's of government to a strong City Manager system will further distance local government from the voters. In addition, consolidating power under the unelected City Manager could lead to cronyism.

This has grass roots activists and neighborhood associations up in arms. Former City Council member Steve Leal, several neighborhood association presidents, and other Tucson residents spoke against the charter changes. Former state legislator Tom Prezelski said that SALC members thought of themselves as "colonial overlords," since this relatively small special interest group is trying to bend policy in their favor, while usurping power of the voters and their elected officials.

Some charter-change opponents went further to call for a strong mayor system. A strong mayor system would give voters the power to hold elected officials accountable. With our current form of distributed governance, the City Manager, the City Council, and, to a lesser extent, the Mayor all hold some power. At the local level, there is no one elected official who is singularly accountable to the voters-- no one who has the authority to say, as former President Harry Truman did, "The buck stops here."

After dozens of mini-speeches during yesterday's study session and during the City Council meeting, the Mayor and Council voted unanimously to hold ward-wide public meetings on the charter changes and to delay the vote on whether or not to put the changes on the ballot until July 7, 2010.

Stay tuned for meeting announcements. As always, if you have an opinion on this, don't hesitate to call or e-mail your City Council member. If you want to watch Mayor and Council proceedings, check out Tucson Channel 12.

This article originally appeared in my Progressive Examiner column.

Should the most powerful person in Tucson government be an unelected bureaucrat?

While most Tucsonans are busily bracing themselves for another summer or making plans to escape the heat, local corporatists are making plans to change local government-- in a big way.

The Southern Arizona Leadership Council (SALC) has been working on a set of Tucson city charter changes that would make the City Manager's position much stronger. SALC's current proposal includes four changes to the city charter:

• Give the city manager greater hire-and-fire authority over some top city department heads and remove the City Council checks-and-balances authority.

• Increase the number of wards by two.

• Give the Mayor (who currently is just a figure head) more voting power.

• Change the Mayor and Council positions from part-time to full-time.

On the surface, these changes may seem innocuous, but they're not. Do we really want the most powerful person in our local government to be an unelected bureaucrat? Tucson has had a City Manager form of government for decades, and it's not working.

Tucson is faced with many challenges -- and opportunities. We need a strong elected visionary Mayor to lead us, not a strong bureaucrat who tosses out random ideas and lets the City Council take the political hits when the ideas prove unpopular.

Tuesday, June 15, the Tucson City Council will hold a study session to discuss these charter changes and other topics. The following Tuesday, June 22, the City Council is scheduled to vote on whether these charter changes should be added to the November ballot.

Call or e-mail your City Council member to voice your opinion on these proposed Charter Changes. The phone number for the Mayor and Council comment line is 791-4700.

Don't let business and development further tighten their control over our local government. If SALC wants to put their ideas on the ballot, they should collect voter signatures-- rather than just slipping it under the Council's door and encouraging their action.

Making the City Manager more powerful is not the answer to Tucson's challenges. Adopting a strong Mayor form of government is. Electing the most powerful person in the city assures that he/she will be accountable to the voters.

This article originally appeared in my Progressive Examiner column.

Tucson lacks "the vision thing" but proposed charter changes won't remedy the problem

In the 29 years I have lived in Tucson, I have seen the city's fortunes ebb and flow like the ocean tides. No where has this cycle of growth and decay been more evident than in downtown Tucson. Over the years, many businesses and revitalization initiatives have come and gone regardless of how successful or popular they were.

A case in point: long before Rio Nuevo and Second Saturdays, there were the Tucson Arts District Partnership (TADPI) and Downtown Saturday Nights.

Both Rio Nuevo and TADPI were charged with breathing new life into downtown. TADPI focused primarily on downtown revitalization by showcasing Tucson artists, hosting downtown arts and music events (like Downtown Saturday Nights), and beautifying downtown with mural projects and pop-up galleries in vacant buildings.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, there was a viable strip of shops and galleries along the east end of Congress Street-- Yikes Toys, Picante, Berta Wright Gallery, Pink Adobe Gallery, and others. Downtown Saturday Night attendees visited these shops and perused the wares exhibited by street vendors. One by one these business folded or moved.

Downtown Saturday nights and the other TADPI projects were wildly popular but were mysteriously discontinued in the 1990s.

Rio Nuevo was created in 1999 when voters approved a special tax increment district and began accumulating sufficient funding to support projects in 2004, according to the city's website. Rio Nuevo has had far more money than TADPI ever did but also has had less focus and much more bad press (thanks to a vendetta by the Arizona Daily Star). Second Saturdays is a downtown business initiative-- and not a Rio Nuevo project-- but projects occurring simultaneously downtown and tend to be lumped together in the minds of citizens.

By 2008, this same strip of shops on Congress Street (which had been vacant for years) had been reborn and housed four galleries, a coffee shop, a hair salon, and a trendy clothing resale shop, along with a few bars. Creative events (1, 2, 3, 4) drew hundreds of Tucsonans downtown to enjoy the art and check out the music and bar scene. To us supporters, downtown appeared to be experiencing a resurgence. By early 2010, seven of these businesses were closed or relocated by a developer to make way for a trendy sports bar, whose owner was glorified in a Daily Star puff piece this week.

While other cities are able to revitalize their downtowns (1, 2), Tucson's beleaguered city core suffers from the fits and starts. This leads long-time Tucsonans ask themselves: "Why does Tucson keep re-inventing the wheel? Why can't we get it right?"

Why? In my opinion, Tucson suffers from the lack of a visionary leader. Yes, we have had plenty of politicians, plans, proposals, and committees, but if you look behind the glossy PR of these initiatives, you'll usually find that they benefit special interests, and not the city as a whole.

Tucson's City Manager form of government is inherently flawed. Our Mayor is a powerless figurehead who signs proclamations and acts as a tie-breaker when City Council members can't agree.

With a City Manager form of government, there is no one elected official who takes responsibility and says, as Harry Truman did, "The buck stops here." Tucson has a City Manager, a Mayor, and six City Council members who run the government. It's no wonder that decision-making, at times, appears schizophrenic. This distributed governance allows some people to be scapegoated (like Nina Trasoff, who personally paid the political price for Rio Nuevo's perceived lack of progress), while Mayor Bob Walkup became our local Teflon Don and easily won re-election.

A leadership vacuum such as this affords the perfect opportunity for special interests to shape local government decisions. Enter the Southern Arizona Leadership Council (SALC)--a group of local businesses-- and the Tucson Charter Coalition (TC3), a spin-off organization, who want to save the city by making basic structural changes in governance.

Currently, these groups are lobbying the Tucson City Council to put city charter changes on the November 2010 ballot.

Some of these proposed changes I agree with. For example, changing city elections to even years would align them with the larger presidential and Congressional elections, thus increasing voter turnout and saving money. Changing the City Council's and Mayor's positions to full time and aligning their salaries with the Pima County Supervisors' compensation would allow the city to attract more qualified candidates. Since these positions are now all part-time, much power is held by unelected staff members. (Eliminating off-year elections will provide funds for the change from part-time to full-time positions.)

What I vehemently disagree with are SALC's proposals that would give the City Manager, another unelected official, more control.

Bureaucrats already hold too much power and are not directly accountable to the voters. Tucson needs a strong visionary Mayor to lead us into the future-- not a strong bureaucrat who owes his power to local businesses.

This article originally appeared in my Progressive Examiner column.