There are many issues that have an impact on all of us, Some as individual homeowners, some as a neighborhood, but many, as a community.
The issue that has gotten the attention of the whole community was the unfortunate, and totally unwarranted dismissal of our dedicated, hard working Town Manager David Andrews. After eighteen years of serving us with such class and dignity, and having earned the respect of the town employees and the vast majority of the citizens, the unscrupulous Mayor Loomis led his "band of stooges," Carter, Kunisch & Abbott into terminating David.
At the Sept 23 Special Session requested by Carter & Kunisch, and blessed by Loomis, these selfish, vindictive individuals talked Abbott into joining them, and without one ounce of concern for putting David's life in turmoil, they fulfilled their dastardly deed.
Why, after eighteen years of dedicated service, and approval as recently as Sept 16, what might have David done that deserved this abrupt departure.
Many of our readers have heard about "hit pieces" sent out regarding the town manager. These hit pieces were sent anonymously--- no name, no signature, no return address. At least one came through the US Postal Service.A couple bloggers that seem to think they are privy to all this "inside information," know about as much as someone living on the other side of the world.
Let me say this as emphatically as I can. There is NOTHING in these letters that should have been cause for David being a scapegoat. In fact, the town attorney determined that writing anonymous hit pieces is a crime under Arizona Statutes (Click here to read).While nobody has claimed to be the "anonymous letter writer," we heard all kinds of stories.
I have seen the letters.The letters are full of innuendo, lies & deceitful unsubstantiated allegations against David.
Anyone---and I mean anyone with any sense of decency, and some amount of basic intelligence who heard these rumors would ask, "what facts are you talking about?"
So, those four damn fools on the council may have used some anonymous, criminal letter writer (that we have reason to believe was one of David's detractors) as a reason to basically fire him.
Oh yeah! Let's not forget one more little caveat. The Oro Valley police were constantly watching David's house. You want innuendo? Here's innuendo. The cops are on record of wanting David fired. The cops are watching his house. The letter writer damn well knew the letter would cause an uproar among those not smart enough to see right through their scheme.
How diligently are the police investigating this crime? If so many people "know" about it, why are they not going to the police with what they know? Are the police following these leads? Or are they afraid it's an "inside job?"
Shame on the four! Shame on anyone that believes this garbage.
These four make me sick. And I'll tell you something else. In effect these four will run our government until June 2010. Do you think they'll listen to reason when they wouldn't even listen when Salette Latas asked to discuss David's future in Executive Session, or when she asked if they'd give David 5 days so he can offer an easier transition prior to his departure? No, vindictiveness prevailed!
Finally, is there anyone in their right mind that will vote for Paul Loomis knowing what a conniving,nasty, misguided, callous person that he is? We hope, and believe the vast majority of Oro Valley citizens are smart, fair and caring. They will not allow this despicable behavior to continue into the next election.
For more, read The Az Star & The Explorer articles here.
http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/310536
http://www.explorernews.com/articles/2009/09/25/news/doc4abbc36824472131668258.txt
49 comments:
Art, your link needs to be fixed. It should point here:
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/03004.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS
Thank our Oro Valley Mom.
We have made the correction.
Four good candidates!
Honorable mention from Wednesday night that should be considered are Bill Kingsley, Conny Culver and Chris DiSimone if they have any interest. Bill Adler sadly isn't interested.
Art, before you start bashing Culver again ask her some questions. I did.
Deacon---- Thanks for the advice. Let's try to stay on topic, which is not Conny Culver. I commend her, (and spoke to her briefly after the meeting) for her kind words about David.
I will say this. There are others out there that I've had issues with in the past-----not anything personal, but positions on issues that have contacted me in support of David.
I'd love to tell you who, but I haven't asked for their permission, so, suffice to say this:
David, other than being a great Town Manager, is a great human being. The fact that so many diverse people that know David can come together and feel about him as we do, speaks volumes.
These same people who speak so highly of David have one other thing in common---They all think Loomis is nothing but one giant embarrassment to Oro Valley and he is NOT WORTHY of being our mayor.
Hmmmmm...Perhaps we need to think outside of the Box (the obvious) "The Tail that wagged the dog". "smoke screen".
Did anyone consider that perhaps that the "issues" Paula mentioned were not about David , but her..., and then we know it is public record about K.C's "things". Then there is Kunish and the Mayor, I am beginning to think since he tried sooo hard to push the "David thing, which could have been prefabicated, there may be hidden issues out there about the Mayor and Al Kunish, something to consider. It should be an obvious conclusion. Many times the individual who causes all the trouble has a great deal to hide, any ideas anyone? This scenario should start people thinking.
traveling dancer--- As long as you bring it up, and as long as David is gone because of these four conspiring to have him removed, someone may want to look into Carter's personnel file, and see how many complaints are actually noted by any number of females.
One may be interested in looking into all those sojourns Loomis takes to Phoenix, and what is the "real" purpose.
Does anyone think that Kunisch may have just a little "conflict of interest" in all his votes supporting the police unions while he drives around in a volunteer police vehicle?
One may want to look into what Abbott knew about about these fabricated allegations about David prior to any other council member, except perhaps Carter.
Is this all innuendo? Maybe---but let's not forget, David Andrews is no longer serving our community because of nothing other than innuendo.
Does anybody know if Mr. Andrews could or would accept his job back? If so, then why can't we try to do something along those lines.
Ok, I don't know all the in's and out's of city gov. But what I do know is sometimes public pressure and opinion can work.
Some on are mistaken about the public remembering this. I know to those who follow local politics it is the news and we remember but most voters here probably don't even know what happened not saying they don't care but saying its not a priority with them.
No I am not being mean just my opinion.
So why not use the resources at hand to do something positives.
We have the blog, we have the paper we have Facebook, etc.
At the least we could show that we support Mr. Andrews and wish him well.
Who knows what it could lead to.
Just an idea.
One more time I suggest four good candidates.
Stop beating to death what has happened and look forward.
Hostile work place. David is too smart to come back until there are changes.
Art, you claim to have seen the evidence and do not share it. Then you mock other bloggers that think they may have the inside track.
Secrets and attacking fellow bloggers serves no one.
Art
There are no traditional "personnel files" on elected officials.
This doesn't mean that some of those officials may have participated in behavior which is egregious, misongynistic, sexist, immoral or unethical. But you won't find that information in a file in a city's human resources department.
And, for those who have asked, the information that I have alluded to was provided to me a month in advance of any executive session. And, no, I would not and did not send an anonymous letter. Nor am I a member of the Oro Valley Police Department or any other law enforcement agency.
Although the information has been corroborated to my satisfaction, it is not up to me to release it. That, I would suggest, might be the role of the 4th estate--the press.
Ok booie here is Lourdes Medrano's phone number: 618-1924. She is a good reporter, writes well IMHO.
Call her, ask her to do a follow up on her coverage of the meeting.
We will respect the truth if it ever comes out.
RB
LOVE bloggers, as someone who has periodically checked in on the site since its inception, I am surprised that there are only 20 or so regular posters. What are the statistics on views? Hopefully much greater than the number of posters.
It seems to me that an awareness campaign needs to be initiated, because this blog does actually promote discourse. If someone can provide a link to OV's political signage laws, and comment on the ramifications of erecting such signs, I pledge to erect as many signs advertising the existence of this blog as the laws and ordinances allow.
As Deacon states, the obvious rectification of the current state of affairs is to replace the existing council members who voted to accept Mr. Andrews resignation with more effectual folk. I will gladly e-mail my resume to anyone who wishes to review it, and accept a collective judgement as to whether I am qualified to run for a seat on the council, or not. I will also respond to any queries sent to cfox2001@gmail.com with promptness and integrity.
On a final note, Ms. Coyote is on the right track, from my perspective; should the council be reoriented in the next election cycle, offer Mr. Andrews his job back, with the conditions that he accept a pay cut, repay the severance package monetary awards, and negotiate the rescinding of the coda that he hold the town harmless from his termination.
Didn't anyone think to ask why, if Mr. Andrews' contract could be allowed to expire (not renewed, and thus not incurring a separation cost;) this was not a viable option? The answer may have been illuminating.
boobie-baby--OK. So you were privy to this anonymous letter.
You also keep talking about "Another Shoe to Drop."
Abbott, indicated she "Didn't want to hurt David" but she wasn't concerned with terminating him.
I will reiterate one more time. There is nothing in this letter other than innuendo. Nothing!"
You say--"Although the information has been corroborated to my satisfaction, it is not up to me to release it."
Corroboration of one innuendo with another innuedo is meaningless.
Tell me and our readers flat out that this anonymous letter that violated the Az Statute has anything in it that you allows you to make that statement.
It's too late for David, but not too late to salvage his besmirched reputation.
"The ball's in your court."
Chris--- Let me say this as succinctly as possible.
There was absolutely nothing David could do to change the predetermined outcome of Wed. night's debacle.
You must know that many of us believe that Loomis is so shrewd, that he knows the outcome of all critical votes PRIOR to the vote.
Prior to the Wed meeting, the last time was back in May, when Loomis, for the first time in my recollection, took the microphone BEFORE anyone else spoke and made the motion to "raid our contingency fund."
His three stooges all seconded the motion simultaneously, and it was approved 4-3.
How could Loomis know he had this "in the bag?"
Hmmm! Might it have been that the open meeting law was violated? Who can say----except, of course the four who voted "yes?"
Getting back to David being treated like dirt. Loomis wanted him out.He waited until he knew he had gotten his 4th vote (Abbott), and that was it.
You tell me, how could the council meet in Executive Session on Sept 16---agree to not take action on David's contract, and exactly one week later "throw him under the bus," and to be sure he wouldn't survive, run over him.
The fact is David had no chance in hell to survive! To put it bluntly, Loomis knew David was "dead meat."
Now, all we can do is make sure Loomis and any of his 3 stooges that see fit to run for reelection, are "dead meat!"
B-b, simple question: if you had corroborated evidence to that which you alluded, and said evidence is irrefutable AND not hearsay, and, I must assume that this 'evidence' was available to Council, then I ask, how come this 'stuff' was not utilized in the 'Executive Session' relative to David Andrew's performance review of last week, but was suddenly brought forth AFTER SAME as a last minute 'reason' for a PUBLIC hearing as 'requested' by 'Jack-in-the-Box' Carter?
I still believe that Loomis had something on these other individuals. It is too obvious their change in how they vote. He has probably done the same with previous members who refuse to vote his way. I think there is a word for that. It is time to turn the tables and for him to get his just reward.
It is lack of transparency and failure to allow public debate that has compromised the current national administration. On a local level the same traits are corrupting the process of governance.
These four representatives do not belong in positions of leadership and need to be removed from office at the first opportunity. In addition, follow the money and peel the onion. We have motive, opportunity, and means. Something here smacks of desperation and the inevitable cover-up will provide cause.
We need answers!
Recalls may commence after six months in office.
No specific grounds are required.
Time for gathering signatures is 120 days.
Signature requirement is number equal to 25% of the vote cast for that office in the last regular election.
This info courtesy of 2009 National Conference of State Legislatures.
Hey Turtle---- At this point, I would expect that we could easily get not 25% of the voters in the last election, but, more than likely, 95% or more.
What these four did to such a fine, good, decent, dedicated man as David Andrews is unforgiving.
Loomis IS A TOTAL LOSER!
LOOMIS IS AN EMBARRASSMENT TO ORO VALLEY!
LOOMIS WILL BE OUT OF HERE, AND THE SOONER THE BETTER!
If we had the signatures, which I believe we could get, not in 120 days, but probably in 12 days, as the people hear about his conniving plot to force David out, we would still need more time to go through the process.
Whether Loomis & his three stooges---CARTER, KUNISCH & ABBOTT are recalled or not----and recalled is the better option---their days are numbered.
They still have the opportunity to continue to damage our community and the reputation of Oro Valley as a "Community of Excellence" ---but I will do everything in my power to make sure they will NEVER be reelected here again.
They have besmirched David's reputation, killed the morale in Town Hall, embarrassed our populace and should be scorned by anybody with a sense of dignity that THEY DON'T have.
Boobie Baby,
If you have knowledge of a criminal activity that violates ARS 13-3004, why would you not report it to the police?
We need 2,256 signatures to recall a council member, and 2,918 signatures to recall the mayor. If the signatures are obtained by early December, and if the subjects of the recalls don't resign within 5 business days, the election will be scheduled for March.
The problem is that the four are all up for election in March anyway, so why should they resign? And why should citizens go through the trouble of gathering thousands of recall signatures, when they could spend time gathering far fewer signatures to run for mayor (584) or council (451).
This is not the first time there has been a recall discussion. Even if the timing was right, which it is not, Loomis for some reason keeps getting elected.
Most on here will disagree with me but the average voter will not remember this and other bad votes and decisions made by those involved.
I doubt Paula will run again and K
C I sort of doubt it. Loomis and Kunisch will.
There needs to be a really strong candidate to run against Loomis!
Looking back over every controversy who is the common denominator-----meaning who is always in the control seat?
Some politicians have the knack of pulling the strings and letting others do the "dirty" work or deed.
Your average voter in OV may remember this incident but they most likely won't remember what 4 voted to accept the resignation.
Most people come election time will just say or think well the town is running nicely, and fair or not who do you think gets the credit for that?
Most are not going to connect Loomis with this horrible decision.
My gut tells me that if you want Loomis out as Mayor, there needs to be a strong candidate and one who already has some experience dealing with council and him. So it should be somebody already on council with a strong voice!
If not my gut tells me we will have Loomis as mayor again with a few new council members.
Art: I have not seen any letter.
Oro Valley Mom: I did not witness any laws being broken.
My understanding is that the Pima County Attorney's Office has looked at the issue of the letter itself, and has decided that there is insufficient reason to pursue any further action.
Boobie Baby,
How do you know that the County Attorney refused to investigate?
The law seems pretty clear to me. This was definitely a crime.
Maybe, as Art suggests, the county knows it was an inside job, and might implicate county officials, police officers, other town employees, or elected officials.
Or it might be because people like you who seem to have evidence of who committed the crime are not coming forward with that evidence.
Mscoyote--- your comment just preceding this raises some good points, but you're "dead wrong" in the following statement you made:
"Your average voter in OV may remember this incident but they most likely won't remember what 4 voted to accept the resignation...
Most are not going to connect Loomis with this horrible decision."
I PROMISE YOU THAT THE VOTERS WILL KNOW AS OF SEPT 23 TO THE DAY OF THE PRIMARY, THAT LOOMIS WAS BEHIND THIS DASTARDLY DEED.
The same holds true for all or any of the other three that think they can get reelected. CARTER, KUNISCH & ABBOTT will live with what they did to David Andrews, but they won't be live without me reminding everyone that they have no scruples and no sense of decency.
WE WILL HAVE GOOD, DECENT PEOPLE RUNNING THAT WILL HELP US BRING ORO VALLEY BACK TO BEING A COMMUNITY OF EXCELLENCE.
LOOMIS IS RESPONSIBLE FOR US NOW BEING A COMMUNITY OF DISGRACE!
Hello Art,
I have to respectfully disagree with you.
I still think most won't connect Loomis with the decision. And if they do they will say well it was a4-3 vote. Also most won't decide to vote Loomy out based on this one decision. I know it was horrible and unfair but just telling you my opinion.
Yes I know you will remind people, I have no doubt about that. Good deal
My suggestion would be to make a case against Loomis and beg borrow or steal a strong council member to run.
Art, just think back a bit. How many times have you seen Loomis loose his cool in public . He usually appears pretty calm, except to the experienced observer. Well that is what the public sees not the guy who pulls the strings.
Perception is reality for most people.
No disrespect Art, but telling posters they are "dead wrong" is not productive.
Again all my opinion
If you wish, I can stop participating and just read rather then post.))
boobie-baby---- You have not seen any letter. There is no way legally that you know what took place in the Sept 16 Executive Session, which, upon completion, David still had his job.
I'll ask you again! What the hell is that other shoe, you continuously noted here, that was "still to fall."
It seems to me, you bought into the same BS as Paula Abbott. Innuendo, lies & deceit propagated by someone or some entity that was so vindictive they'd go to any means to cause David his position.
In case you missed it, I'll ask again. What EVIDENCE do you, or anyone else have that would have caused David, the town, and, we, the people so much damage?
Remember Bull SH*T IS NOT EVIDENCE!
When someone dies or leaves a company there is always a group that decides to put aside all flaws they may have had and elevate them to some form of sainthood It appears that David Andrews is in for the same treatment as a result of leaving OV.
Lets just step back a few months and high light some things that David was a part of that maybe didn’t ultimately bode well for him.
Lets start with his new contract and the additional monies he wanted to be paid, as well as his request to carryover vacation time, payment to his pension fund, a $5000 car allowance and it goes on. I don’t believe all the members of council voted for this, but enough did to make it happen.
Shortly there after the question of COLA for town employees came up and David could not see how they could budget 2 % but one per cent seemed to work. This after he had gotten a more than 20 % raise.
The budget came into question and suddenly we didn’t have money. This from a guy who is supposed to have a strong financial background…did he just find out about this as the “Manager”?
David’s response was to demand that people be cut to reduce costs. Yes that was his response, regardless of what was said by him later. No thought given to anything else just people until folks started to challenge him.
There was quite a push back from this method of reducing costs, not just from Public Safety Unions and citizens, but also from the three you seem to be infatuated with.
David denies he pushed for people and eventually the council and did David turn to additional opportunities to balance the budget. With the help of one of your folks and an outside volunteer. PLEASE.
Monies were moved by Garner from the Public Safety budget to the Admin side to make it look like they reduced the cost of Public safety. Smoke and mirrors to make Bill look good…few were actually fooled.
To get back to David, he has now shown that his less than truthful answers about people has become a stumbling block with the Public Safety folks and trust is an issue. The text of a meeting David has with them and provided to council does little to dispel that thought.
David let his job be politicized by your folks and they led him down a bad path, i.e. helped him undermine the actions authorized by council on more than one occasion and at the very least, specifically, people and hiring.
KC Carter was probably the one person that was the difference with his staying or going. When the time given to that friendship was perhaps replaced by someone else’s time, perhaps that is when the cloud of friendship might have cleared for KC and he looked back to see what he as a friend to David might have overlooked. At least he “looked back” is what I heard on the audio.
David’s at fault, and the three folks who led him astray share some responsibility. He might have saved his job had he just mishandled the budget, but not being able to establish a working relationship with the Public Safety sector was not in the town’s best interest or his. He didn’t have to like them but he needed to be honest, put aside his biases and work with them. He did not accomplish that.
I’ll give a little on the point that maybe Kunish and Loomis weren’t David’s biggest fans, but Paula has been straightforward on her votes, even you admit that. To suspect her now just doesn’t make sense. If Paula couldn’t reconcile the “issues” I think it is time to respect that and believe whatever it was must have been significant.
As for your rant and comments and name calling, I heard on the audio…. Art it was “despicable”. Your rudeness was crass and uncalled for in this or any situation. Your rant is really an embarrassment to the Town of Oro Valley and its’ citizens. If your blogger buddies can’t see that it was inappropriate and less than the expectations of civility we all expect…well then they deserve you and are guilty of the same sins.
The blog is the place for bloggers to continue the lies, innuendo and vindictiveness. The very things you accuse others of seem to be rampant here.
Observer,
Please provide much more detail pertaining to David's inability to establish a working relationship with the public safety sector (why not just say the police).
It seems as though in your mind, David's inability to get along with the police was the major reason for his dismissal.
So if there was a problem with any area of his job performance then why did the council give him a satisfactory rating the week before.
And if there was a problem why not discuss it and give directions to work on it or improve?
Just asking
Observer.
Thank you for your post. It is good to get a viewpoint which does not echo the majority of the bloggers here.
I have a continuing question regarding the personnel strength of the OVPD.
Do you belive that the current authorization is the right size for the police?
This is a respectful question, I have no agenda. I appears that some of the current difficulties we face in the community stem from a strong difference of opion on this subject.
Thank you again for your post. NW
Observer 77--- Thanks for your contribution, in spite of your comments about me. I believe you at least presented a case in which you believe, and you did so in a calm, rational way.
My problem is this. As you too chose to use a pseudonym, which most others see fit to do, it is difficult to know if YOU "don't have an axe to grind."
Iasmuch as I am not privy to the perfectly legal taping of David's meeting with the police, I assume, you are, in that you reference it in in your comment even though you mention "council members are." Obviously, you are not on council---unless of cause YOU are Loomis. Carter, Kunisch or AbbOtt. I don't think so because your writing sounds too intelligent. Not totally accurate, but intelligent.
I must tell you, to me, I image many of fair minded readers will get the impression you are either an OV police officer, or, if nothing else a sympathetic supporter. That too, is perfectly fine, but the tone of your message leaves me (and, perhaps others) very skeptical as to your motives.
What I find interesting is the fact that the police unions were blaming David for their potential lose of six CAT officers, and they were quite dismayed that the Chief, Danny Sharp was responsible for submitted those six in what was to be an "across the board" cutback in helping to balance our budget.
No reasonable person can believe David was looking "to take out any cops," (Does the phrase "Take-out" ring a bell?)
David was doing what he did for the 16 years I've been a resident, and that is doing what was in the best interests of the people of Oro Valley----regardless of the repercussions.
One other point of note. Would you condone it if you knew the police were taking the time to "stake out" David's residence, or would you, as most reasonble would, condemn it?
As for David's remuneration, are you aware when he accepted the position as Town Manager with the additional work load, and certainly, the additional responsibilities, he, David neither asked nor received any salary increase. More than two years later, the copuncil approved his increase, with, obviously his two big detractors at the time, Loomis & Kunisch opposed. That brought David's salary up to par with other town managers in the area, and as far as I am concerned, David was worth every penny, knowing as I do, how many hours he put him, how dedicated he was, and perhaps, most important, how the vast majority of the town employees (other than the police unions) respected him.
I have still not heard one reason why David was terminated so abruptly, exactly one week after an Executive Session was held with no indication to the 3 council members Barry, Bill & Salette and the employees and the citizens that Loomis was lurking behind the scenes plotting his stratergy to force David out.
That was accomplished with his hatchetmen, Carter & Kunisch who were able to convince convinced Abbott that David was a liabilityand had to go.
No matter how eloquently you may state it, it was a combination of two evils (Cop union people and the "four losers")that caused so much distress to David, the employees & the people.
Neither you, nor any of his other few detractors have convinced me, or I venture to say, any other fair minded person, this was a "hatchet job."
Innuendo, rumor, lies & deceit do not equal evidence. Any good cop would know that!
Observer 77,
In response to, "He didn’t have to like them but he needed to be honest, put aside his biases and work with them. He did not accomplish that." Couldn't the same be said of Loomis, Kunisch, Carter and Abbott and their inability to put their biases (and jealousies) aside and work with Latas and Garner to do what's best for the taxpayers?
In response to, "If Paula couldn’t reconcile the “issues” I think it is time to respect that and believe whatever it was must have been significant." If it was so significant, why weren't Latas, Garner and Gillaspie informed of the "issue?"
Nombe,
I notice you've asked many times of the pro-OVPD bloggers if the number of cops we have is the correct size for our population and demographic as compared to other towns and I notice that no one has ever answered your question. It's interesting that they always avoid answering that question.
I've also asked numerous times, if the "issues" surrounding Andrews were so significant, why were Latas, Garner, and Gillaspie not informed of those issues. Again, all the pro-4-stooges people avoid answering that question.
In both cases, the silence speaks volumes!
Speaking of how the police union wanted David "taken out" does anyone else find it interesting that although they showed up en masse at a recent council meeting to attack his reputation, and although they clearly stated that they wanted him removed from office, and were so obsessed with doing so that they ambushed him in a meeting and secretly recorded the conversation...
Yet when the discussion of his contract was placed on the study session agenda, and a dozen people showed up to speak out IN SUPPORT of David, NOT ONE OVPD officer showed up to speak out against him.
Sounds to me like they didn't feel the need to show up THAT night because they already knew how the vote would go.
To quote Latas, "That's amazingly intuitive to me."
I wonder now and in the future, how Paula is going to feel. Realizing that because of her vote, a good employee of the city and one of the best City Managers in the state is gone.
How would she feel under the same circumstances ,if someone had it out for her husband and he lost his job of 18 years. A career that he worked hard at. Well,there is an old saying "what goes around comes around"
I sure wouldn't want to be in her place and have to live with that kind of judgement call, especially when it could have gone into executive session and worked out.
I hate to say this but something smells fishy.
Unless the Mayor and other members met as a quorum (4 or more members in their case) to discuss and deliberate, there was no violation open meeting laws. The definition of a "meeing" is this:
"The gathering, in person or through technological devices, of a quorum of members of a public body at which they discuss, propose or take legal action, including any deliberations by a quorum with respect to such action."
Observer77, I regret that it has taken me so long to comment on certain particulars that you talk about; my comments will be general:
As to the emotion that comes forth on this site, it is understandable given the affinity and respect that most in this community have had for David Andrews and which has not been muted as none has come forward with any FACTS whatsoever which, to date, might or could change that.
As to your dissing Mr. Andrews relative to various components of the budget process, let me simply state that my wife was a budget coordinator for Wake County in North Carolina for about 15 years.
It was the duty absolute for the budget department to meet with, discuss, and virtually finalize the budgets for ALL of the departments within the County function. Once accomplished, a comprehensive document (extensive and orderly) was published and forwarded to the County Commissioners for review, minor revision, and final approval (and yes, there were a few items that did come up for a public hearing during the process). The 'proposed document' was, prior to final approval' also available to be examined by the public for anyone who wished to scrutinize it. Then and only then was a public hearing called and a final vote taken. In short, there was a pecking order established that did not allow for micromanagement by the County nor was there opportunity for the various departments to poke their noses into it at will (including the Public Safety Department!). Be honest, Observer, these were (are) tough times, money was (is) short, and situations had to be examined and determinations had to be made. For you to claim that [no other options other than cutting jobs] was examined is fallacious. I went to several meetings and observed that attempts were made, IN FACT, to find ways of alleviating the money crunch with the least
of cost to the number of jobs that perhaps might be effected. REMEMBER the utility tax that was put into being a couple of years ago which was to be utilized for a TEMPORARY increase in the Public Safety Department. REMEMBER that it was supposed to sunset last April when the 6 Public Safety Jobs were supposed to expire. REMEMBER how the OVPD overwhelmed a public hearing and REMEMBER how the Council made the decision to 'forget' about the 'sunset' provision and keep the extra officers. Oh, and do you remember, too, that the TOV contingency fund was raided in order to satisfy some demands by so-called non-profits (a Council decision)? It may have been legal but was it right? As I understand it they cannot persist in repeating this kind of action (I am not of legal authority so this is opinion); so, what happens this next fiscal year when, as predicted, we most probably will have another shortfall?
Okay, Observer, I suppose we can argue 'till the cows come home' about David Andrew's job performance, but you can't argue with the State of the Town that produced whatever it did when it did that he had to contend with. I will stand with most who believe that he was an asset extraordinaire to the community.
Now, for the real meat of my TOTAL DISGUST with the 'Gang of Four':
One week before this past public meeting, Council met in an 'Executive Session' which is a PRIVATE one for David Andrew's review; they took no action that might negatively impact his job. Suddenly last Friday (I think that was the day), Jack-in-the-Box Carter popped up and wanted Mr. Andrew's status put on display within a PUBLIC meeting. Why? It was not at all necessary! This 'Gang of Four' elected NOT to address this issue in the privacy of an 'Executive Session' and now you see the result - further fracturing of a community that deserves better. Four members of Council decided to try and publicly humiliate a man who has served his community well and they did so in a most despicable manner. THEIR conduct WAS shameful to the UTMOST!
VC, you said, "so obsessed with doing so that they ambushed him in a meeting and secretly recorded the conversation..."
So are you asserting that he would have said something different if he knew he was being recorded? (And I highly doubt he DIDN'T know, since cops record everything.)
Also, how can one be ambushed in a meeting they called? He was well aware by that time, I suspect, of the issues they had with him. Did you expect them to sit around singing Kumbaya? He knew that there would be questions and issues.
Speaking of issues, that quote from one of the unions was from FIVE years ago. Is the person who said that even there anymore? Five years is a long time...I'm just sayin'.
I don't think that the Council was intimidated by the police. I think they had their own reasons. What are they? I'm just as curious as you are.
Suija,
You asked, "How can one be ambushed in a meeting they called." The ambush I refer to is how they turned the meeting into a UNION meeting without Andrews' knowledge of this beforehand. Some of us have already discussed this on this site. Perhaps you were not reading the posts at that time.
You asked, "So are you asserting that he would have said something different if he knew he was being recorded?" Again, I discussed this on a prior post. I stated that when one person/group is aware of the recording and the other person/group is not, then the one who IS aware can manipulate the conversation to their advantage to get the result they're looking for. That's why I don't give much weight to this type of recording. The police were obviously very careful of what THEY said since they knew THEY were being recorded.
Now if the room itself is bugged so that all parties involved are not aware that they're being recorded, then I would at least know that no one was engineering the outcome. But that type of recording is illegal.
I am in awe that those that 'support' the action seem to all 'know' the inside scoop whereas we, the people, can't seem to 'snake' it out. Is it that the inside scoop is really the 'inside' poop?
Observer77,
[note: I have to cut this post into two postings so that the page will accept it.]
You have a few facts wrong.
David Andrews never got a car allowance, let alone a take-home vehicle, as did 68 employees in the PD.
Before David's raise, he had been working for the town for 17 years, and he was earning less than the newly-hired, far less experienced manager of Marana. Before his raise, he was earning just $3,000 more than Chief Sharp. When you add in the value of Sharp's unmarked, take-home vehicle and other perks, Sharp was earning more.
Five members of the council voted for the raise, including Carter and Abbott, both of whom had been on the council more than one term and highly praised David's performance.
The question of COLAs for employees did not come up AFTER David's raise, but before. And the two are not the same. A cost of living adjustment is based on (duh) the cost of living. A market adjustment in salary is based on what similarly sized organizations pay their employees. The council approved the 1% COLA when most, if not all, other local municipalities were denying any COLAs. And, as I mentioned, the council approved David's market adjustment by a 5-2 vote.
When the vast majority of an organization's budget is used for paying employees, then it only makes sense that when faced with a large deficit, some of the cuts are going to have to be in the form of layoffs. That's just reality. That's how all businesses and good governments work. When government keeps people employed regardless of the amount of work there is for them to do, that's called communism.
We, as taxpayers and voters, are the ones who demand that government live within its means, and rightly so. I, for one, do not want to have my taxes raised so that the government can keep growing. Sometimes, the demands for smaller government really are justified, and the devastating economic downturn of the past year was one of those times.
Yes, Bill Garner and that citizen accountant did a great job making other cuts. But in the end, they weren't enough to balance the budget. The four big-government council members--Loomis, Kunisch, Carter, and Abbott--voted to keep paying everyone out of our savings, even if there was no work for them to do, and even if there was no money coming in.
How is it that you have seen the text of the meeting with David? Could you please send it to Art so that he can share it with all of us so that we can judge for ourselves how people behaved?
How did Art's "people" help David undermine the decisions of council?
[part 2]
Your most revealing sentences are as follows: "KC Carter was probably the one person that was the difference with his staying or going. When the time given to that friendship was perhaps replaced by someone else’s time, perhaps that is when the cloud of friendship might have cleared for KC and he looked back to see what he as a friend to David might have overlooked."
You seem to be admitting that David Andrews spent a great deal of time with KC Carter, and that David extended much friendship to KC. Those of us who know either David or KC or both know that this is exactly the case. KC spent an extraordinary amount of time at David's house. KC often summoned David to his house. Many of us saw David chaufering KC around, taking him to breakfast, lunch, dinner, whatever. Many who know KC describe him as a very needy, demanding, nasty, dirty old man. I feel so sorry that a very nice, respectful, and gracious person like David had to work for seven politicians, and I feel especially sorry that KC Carter demanded so much of David that was clearly above and beyond the call of duty.
Then you surmise that maybe David began spending time with a different friend. Well, good for him! Does the man not have a right to have real friends, instead of just the nasty, vindictive kind?
Then you surmise that "cloud of friendship might have cleared for KC."
Hogwash. KC was never in a "cloud of friendship" or at least, he should never have allowed himself to be in one. If he ever was, he should have recused himself from all votes regarding David.
No, the condition that you are trying to describe is that of a control freak or stalker, the object of whose obsession is not meeting his unreasonable demands.
"not being able to establish a working relationship with the Public Safety sector was not in the town’s best interest or his."
Wow. That sounds like someone trained by AZCOPS: "First, we will try to work with you. Then we will take you out."
Paula has not been straigtforward on her votes for at least the past 7 months, as I've pointed out earlier. She has voted against everything that she was previously for. And apparently whatever her "issue" was, she did not find it significant enough to cause her to refer David's contract to an agenda after his performance review.
We will also have to disagree about Art's speech Wednesday night. I thought it was awesome. And every single speaker there that night agreed with Art. Not a single person spoke out against David.
Bravo, Art.
Suija,
I googled "Arizona Open Meeting Law" and found this very helpful guide:
http://www.azleg.gov/ombudsman/Open%20Meeting%20Law%20101.pdf
In addition to your definition of a meeting, this author notes, "This includes telephone and e-mail communications."
So if Loomis, Kunisch, Carter, and Abbott discussed an issue on the phone or via e-mail prior to the meeting, it would be an open meeting law violation.
Anyone who thinks this might have happened can file a complaint with the Attorney General’s Open Meeting Law Enforcement Team (602) 542-5025.
Suija,
You asked if Martin Bihn, to whom the Explorer attributed the "take you out" quote, was still working for AZCOPS.
Apparently, he is: http://azcops.com/Legal.aspx
Oh, and apparently, he is out there busily carrying out his threats against other city managers:
http://www.trivalleycentral.com/articles/2009/09/20/maricopa_monitor/top_stories/doc4ab2b36b9d533277696761.txt
http://www.trivalleycentral.com/articles/2009/09/20/maricopa_monitor/top_stories/doc4ab2a8f852ef1351871570.txt
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/142342
http://www.nogalesinternational.com/articles/2007/09/25/news/news4.txt
I strongly support David Andrews. While serving on Council, I had a strong professional relationship with him. On a personal basis, I consider him a very good friend.
I commend Barry, Salette, and Bill for standing up and identifying the vindictive and petty behaviors our community witnessed on September 23.
I had decided not to participate in this blog because of the historically vicious personal attacks. It now appears civility reigns and we have several common goals.
I would prefer to speak for myself on this blog. I see I have both friends and critics here. I'll promise to respond to both in an honest and civil manner.
Please, address any questions or concerns to me and I'll be pleased to answer you on this blog, or email: connyculver@mac.com, and by phone,
219-1313.
Conny,
Glad to see another blogger on here.
Different opinions sometimes lead to idea's that won't come forth when everybody or most think exactly alike
I may or may not agree with you or any poster all the time but I think more of us could disagree without being so disagreeable .
Being a former council member I am sure you can bring something different to the mix of idea's here.
It gets emotional here at times but most are sincere and good people who mean well :))
Dear Mscoyote,
Thank you for responding.
Yes, there are many good and well-intentioned people!
Speaking only for myself, my time on Council was a rewarding experience. At the same time, there was a shocking awakening to the constraints of legal realities.
In 2004, Barry, Helen, Terry, KC, and I were determined to make a difference.
Shortly after our election, an anonymous letter arrived accusing Bill Adler and his associates of breaking election laws. I find it very interesting another anonymous letter appeared intended to harm David. Could it be the same person?
In 2004 it felt as if the Town Manager, Chuck Sweet did everything he could to cause us to fail. In contrast, David did his job and guided each new council member to work within the law and the policies governing Oro Valley to achieve their goals.
If you have any questions about any of my actions please tell me. I welcome the opportunity to state the facts as I saw them and share the reasoning for my decisions.
Accusations are not always factual, as we witnessed Wednesday night.
Art,
I want to see all four replaced. How that's done is entirely up to the voters of Oro Valley.
A friend from Town Hall, talking about Abbott, told me " I know she says she isn't going to run but she ACTS like she's going to."
For that reason I wanted to address the issues you posted about her unhappiness on Council.
Post a Comment