ScottsdaleCitizen.com

I'm John Washington. My family and I live in the Peaceful Valley neighborhood in Downtown Scottsdale We love Scottsdale because of the sense of community; the wonderful people; and the low density, low scale, suburban character.

I am committed to preserving and nurturing the qualities that make Scottsdale unique in all the world, and which afford us a reasonable cost of living along with great public services and public amenities. However, our community is facing very real financial and physical challenges.

Because we are a premier tourist destination, Scottsdale enjoys a degree of insulation from the faltering national economy. However, the more our leaders shift us toward a growth-addicted economy and away from a tourism economy, the more we suffer from national economic issues.

Change is inevitable, intelligent change is not. We are gradually losing the unique physical character that has made us internationally recognized. We have to know and understand our character, then decide how to balance it against growth. In deciding that balance, the citizens should have the first word…and the last.

Effective City government must be open and responsive. Leaders and staff must respect the citizens by reaching out to them early, sincerely, and with full honesty. They must fully involve the citizens in major decisions affecting the community. They should welcome citizen concerns and input, rather than ridiculing them. The citizens are the ultimate customers of City leadership, and they are ultimately the “boss,” as well.

My goal is to restore respect, honesty, and trust to the partnership between Scottsdale’s citizens and their elected representatives. It is the only way we can pass on to our children a sustainable community where they can enjoy an ever-improving quality of life.

Contact me at John@ReactionResearch.com

Chamber of Commerce Campaign Complaint
(read from bottom up for full story)

Update, 2 November 2010: The hearing before Maricopa Superior Court Judge Crane McClennen was continued to 1 December at 10 a.m. to allow for more lengthy oral argument (originally scheduled for 15 minutes per side).

Update, 19 April 2010: Chamber Sues City of Scottsdale to Appeal Fine: The Chamber has made good on their statement that they would sue to appeal the decision of Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden from the Office of Administrative Hearings. The matter will now be considered by the Maricopa County Superior Court. It is assigned to Judge Crane McClennen under case numbers LC2010-000008, and LC2010-000277.

Update, 30 November 2009: Administrative Law Judge Shedden has found against the Chamber in this matter, and the Chamber has said they will appeal.

Update, 18 November 2009: The Chamber Gets Another Hearing. The Chamber has had its first hearing in front of Administrative Hearing Officer Thomas Shedden, who will rule before the end of this month. It is important to note that there are actually two actions pending against the Chamber at the moment. The first (which was the subject of the hearing we just had) relates to their campaign itself, and was issued by the City Attorney's office. The second action was for lack of reporting of campaign contributions and expenditures. This action originated with the City Clerk's office, and follows as a matter of procedure from the City Attorney's finding of violation.

In the first action Tom Irvine, attorney for the Chamber, argued strongly that the City was in violation of state statute for not allowing the Chamber "time to cure" their breach. This somewhat mirrors a complaint argued successfully by Arpaio deputy Fox (also before Shedden) relating to Fox's campaign contributions to the Republican Party. However, there is no "cure" period for the campaign portion of the Chamber's violation, and from a practical standpoint you can't undo the campaign!

Shedden will rule on the first violation by the end of November 2009.

For their failure to file the proper campaign reporting, the City Clerk allowed Irvine and the Chamber the twenty-day cure period required by statute. Irvine allowed the twenty-day cure period to pass without response. Thus, the Scottsdale City Attorney has given Irvine another notice of violation. Irvine subsequently requested another hearing before Shedden, to which he is entitled and which must take place before either party can take this issue into Maricopa County Superior Court.

Irvine will undoubtedly make all the same convoluted arguments as in the first hearing. It would have been a lot more expeditious had Irvine (who, I should note, also tried to make the case the City has dragged this out to the detriment of the Chamber) allowed the two matters to be combined. Clearly it is a tactical decision on Irvine's part not to do so.

The date of the next hearing is set for 16 December at 2:00 p.m., and it will also be at the Office of Administrative Hearings in downtown Phoenix.

Where do we go from here? Regardless of outcome, the losing party will appeal to the Maricopa County Superior Court. Irvine and the Chamber have both had a degree of success in Superior Court on election-related matters like the Hanover referendum and the dust control referendum. Perhaps he's confident he'll prevail yet again, and he's saving his energy for that venue. Of course, from there the case could go to the Arizona Court of Appeals and then on to the Arizona Supreme Court. Heck, Irvine, Kidder, and the Chamber's Executive Committee could drag this out for YEARS!

Update, 23 September 2009: Tom Irvine, attorney for the Chamber, has filed a response to the Scottsdale City Attorney appealing for an administrative hearing. His response reads in part (with my assessment in parentheses):

1. All actions of the Scottsdale Area Chamber of Commerce comply with Arizona law. [Obviously, the Tucson City Attorney's Office feels otherwise.]

2. Contrary to its uniform practice of decades, the Scottsdale Area Chamber of Commerce was not given the opportunity to respond to one of the complaints and, as to factual matters, no people involved were interviewed or contacted. Again, this is contrary to decades of practice of the City and the City Clerk. [The Chamber was given required notice that the complaint was being referred to Tucson, and had every opportunity to respond. The Chamber's campaign materials--mailers and TV ads--provided all the evidence necessary to consider this complaint. There was absolutely no need to interview anyone.]

3. If the City Attorneys [sic] Office had a conflict last year, it has a conflict this year and its order is void. [The conflict was declared with regard to the issue of whether a violation occurred. Now that Tucson has rendered an unbiased legal opinion on that matter and made recommendations as to remedy, Scottsdale is merely the enforcement agency. There is no conflict]

4. All officials of the City of Scottsdale have a conflict as a result of an elected official making statments in the press that he will seek governmental action as a result of a persons [sic] insisting upon their First Amendment and statutory rights. [See comments above.]

5. When the Arizona Attorney General's Office, and later the Pima County Attorney's Office, provided an opportunity for the Scottsdale Area Chamber of Commerce to respond to a complaint they came to the conclusion that no enforcement action could or should be taken. Without the bother of a response or interviewing witnesses, conflicted City staff have come to an opposite conclusion that will be remedied upon appeal. [This is mixing apples and oranges. the AZ AG and Pima County recommended no prosecution of the CRIMINAL complaint. The complaint before the City now is a separate (but obviously related) CIVIL complaint.]

6. Both the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 6 o fthe Arizona Constitution protect and authorize the actions fo the Scottsdale Area Chamber of Commerce. At times, the First Amendment is easy to complain about, however, it is fundamental to the American experiement. [It is easy for unscrupulous parties wishing to hide behind the First Amendment to claim its protection]

7. The actions of the Scottsdale Chamber of Commerce conform to Buckley v. Valeo and its progeny and Chapter 6, Article I of Title 16 of the A.R.S. [I haven't read the Buckley opinion, so 'no comment.']

Next step is an adminstrative hearing. There is no specified time to set a hearing. The time frame depends on the schedule of the hearing officer. Once the hearing is set, a minimum of 20 days' notice of the hearing has to be given to the Chamber. I have inquired for more information about the administrative hearing process.

On Tuesday September 1st (almost a year since the original filing on September 18, 2008), my campaign finance complaint against the Scottsdale Area Chamber of Commerce was finally addressed by the Tucson City Attorney (TCA), to whom it had been referred through several declarations of potential conflict of interest. You can see the entire opinion from the TCA by clicking on this link:

TCA Chamber Complaint Opinion

In case you don't care to read the entire opinion, the summary is this: The Chamber implemented a campaign marketing effort late last year in support of four candidates (Manross for mayor, Drake, Klapp, McCullagh for council) that they felt shared the Chamber's vision of the way business should be done in Scottsdale. In the process, the Chamber violated several state statutes regarding campaign finance organizing, reporting, and disclosure of donors. The penalties are hefty: As prescribed by the TCA and conservatively estimated by me, as much as $300,000.

The Scottsdale City Clerk and the Scottsdale City Attorney's office has given official notice of violation to the Chamber's attorney in this matter, Tom Irvine. Mr. Irvine has announced the Chamber will appeal, and that must be done by 23 September. Meanwhile, Mike Ryan (General Manager of the Scottsdale Republic) has resigned as a member of the Chamber's Executive committee, and has joined his fellow journalists (and many others in the community) in calling for complete disclosure of the Chamber's campaign donor list. I will post more information as soon as I have it.

The Scottsdale Area Chamber of Commerce is a great organization. Its members have done an incredible amount of good for Scottsdale and her residents. It is unfortunate that a few individuals in Chamber leadership positions relied on some very bad advice in stepping a little too close to the line between right and wrong.

Admittedly, this line was blurred by lack of clarity in state law. This incident will help everyone know where the line is as we go into next year's council election. However, this is also a good lesson to us all that it is better to keep our distance from the line rather than risk stepping over it.

John Washington, John@ReactionResearch.com, 480.229.1831