Thursday, February 11, 2010

Got Your Ballot? Vote For Mike Zinkin For Oro Valley Mayor

The ballots for the March primary election have been mailed. We hope you believe, as we do, that Mike Zinkin is unequivocally the best choice for Mayor of Oro Valley. We are asking all our Oro Valley friends and neighbors to please vote for Mike Zinkin as Oro Valley’s next Mayor.

First off, Paul Loomis, Mayor for ten years, is clearly not the person to lead Oro Valley for the next four years. Here's twenty reasons why:

1) If you are offended that Mayor Loomis was responsible for the termination of our Town Manager David Andrews after almost 18 years of dedicated service to the community.

2) If you are offended that a crematorium was built in Rancho Vistoso in close proximity to many residents.

3) If you are offended that Vestar was promised $23,200,000 of our sales tax revenue over ten years for bringing us a Walmart.

4) If you are offended that we spent almost $700,000 in defeating a $48.6 million dollar park, which Loomis wanted to make $150 million.

5) If you are offended that we were forced to pay a tax on our necessities of life—gas, water & electric bills.

6) If you are offended that the above tax was due to expire in April 2009, only to be continued indefinitely with Loomis' backing..

7) If you are offended that we just got another rate hike on our water bills, although the Water Director indicated he had a balanced budget.

8) If you are offended that Loomis consistently voted to give tens of thousands of our dollars to TREO, while he served on its Board of Directors.

9) If you are offended that Loomis took an $11,000 trip to Germany & Switzerland at taxpayer’s expense, without ever giving a trip report.

10) If you are offended that Loomis went against the recommendation of the
Town Manager & Finance Director and voted to allow our contingency fund to be "raided" to placate the police union.

11) If you are offended that the El Conquistador has been getting a 2% “kickback” on our bed tax revenue for ten years in an amount of approximately $3 million, for no good reason.

12) If you are offended by the “monster” wall of the east side of Oracle road, a Scenic Corridor approaching the Catalina State Park.

13) If you are offended that Loomis recently suggested a Property Tax could well be in our future.

14) If you are offended that we are operating with a deficit budget because our expenditures are out of control with no consideration of differentiating "wants" from "needs.".

15) If you are offended that a 60 foot hotel was permitted at Innovation Park when the code said “no hotel, and no structure over 36 feet.”

16) If you are offended that a 75 foot hotel was permitted on the east side of Oracle road fronting Pusch Peak.

17) If you are offended that almost half of our residents were forced to give up fire service by Rural Metro, only to get escalated rates by GRFD with no improvement in service.

18) If you are offended that during Loomis' tenure we have seen the price of government grow from $1,700 per resident to $4,600 per resident.

19) If you are offended that Loomis voted “no” on the implementation of an Economic Development Commission intended make recommendations to the council on economic development issues, such as business attraction and retention, and provide the council with an annual action plan.

20) If you are offended that we are the only Pima County Library that is not part of the county library system, resulting in double taxation.

Too many times Mayor Loomis gave in to the wishes of the developers and special interest groups at the expense of the citizens. Unlike the incumbent or the other candidate, Mike Zinkin is not, and will not be beholden to any special interest group.

Our concerns about Satish Hiremath, the third candidate, are the result of his special interests endorsements (SAHBA, NPCCC). In addition, he is totally inexperienced in Oro Valley's Government and its operations.

Mike is the only Mayoral candidate who can deal with all the challenges we face because he is the only candidate who is completely independent of special interests AND, at the same time, has experience with Oro Valley Town Government. Neither of his opponents can make this statement.

We Need Mike Zinkin As Mayor.





Christopher Fox said...

Mr. Zinkin will have my vote, but I am worried that he is becoming too much the politician, avoiding direct answers to questions. If a question is clearly of the Yes or No type, he needs to respond directly with a Yes or a No. If he wants to qualify the response, fine, but a direct person will indicate an affirmative or negative response at the very beginning of their response, and not leave voters the responsibility of deciphering if the response was a Yes or a No. Dr. Hiremath, who will not receive my vote, clearly has learned the fundamental tenet of writing that a response to a question should always answer the question, and also be formed in such a manner that the question itself can be derived from the response.

Offering advice or stating observations can be problematic, in that the offerings themselves often trigger unexpected responses from the intended audience, but in this case, I feel the need overrides the potential negative result.

I am going to try to create a simple Yes or No questionnaire to submit to candidates that will ask them such direct questions as "Will you direct staff to cut funding to the Police Department?" and "Will you direct staff to comply with Pima County's requirements for full participation in the county Public Library system to eliminate our current excess expenditures for the Oro Valley branch of the Pima County Library system?" Any assistance would be greatly appreciated,

Christopher Fox

artmarth said...

Christopher--- Although I know Mike's position on the specific two questions you allude to, I believe your point is well taken.
I certainly appreciate your vote for Mike, but I also believe that you and all voters should know a candidate's position on the issues.

There is no doubt about Loomis and where he stands. His actions as mayor has made it perfectly clear.

Hiremath states his positions in his literature, and although it is a little ambiguous, he will look out for the Special Interest vote, before the concerns for the average citizen.

I will not speak for Mike Zinkin, but I will say, he puts the people's interests above all others.

As such, when it comes to the library, I believe Mike will be consistent and tell you (and others)he will work hard to keep our library independent of Pima County----BUT, and it's a "big but"---not if it will mean double taxation for the taxpayers of Oro Valley.

As for public safety, I know Mike is concerned as much as anyone. However,I think you'll find that Mike will not "cater to" the police unions as Hiremath does, and wouldn't have "tossed" our Town Manager out, as Loomis did, in order to placate the police union.

Thanks for your comment.


OV Objective Thinker said...


I would submit a different response to your comment. When someone is attempting to 'ride the fence' they often purposefully avoid answering anything directly. Therefore voters cannot, at some future date, make the observation that you said A and did B. That's point one. Secondly, when one is not clear, even in their own mind what the answer is, they avoid a direct response or they are constructing an answer that will fit the audience to whom they are addressing. Third, it is a conditioned response presented to them by their handlers. They are 'parroting'. Fourth possibility is that they are simply lying about their true position.

My next observation is the continued reference by the blog masta that certain candidates are supported by "special interests" and therefore they cannot be trusted and not worthy of a vote.

I submit to you and others who frequent this blog, that Mr. Segal and his blog are a 'special interest' Does anyone doubt for a moment that Art has an agenda and this blog and his postings support his own agenda (special interest).

I also submit that the members of the Town Council are a special interest. Individually, they have an agenda and they want allies on the council that will assist in the forwarding of that agenda.

But it is fine for both to endorse and that kind of an endorsement is OK.

It's hypocracy at it's finest.

OV Objective Thinker said...

From the Town Council dias Ms. Latas stated that she would OPPOSE allowing Town employees to participate in local elections on their own time.

Ms. Latas IS a defacto employees of the Town. As such I believe she should lead by example. Why is it OK for her to participate and other Town employees. I guess she feels that rules don't apply to her.

That my friends is hypocracy.

Subject: Who will speak for the taxpayers of Oro Valley?
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 17:00:36 -0700
Many Oro Valley voters have asked me about the candidates on the 2010 Oro Valley ballot.
I can tell you this:
There are only three candidates on the entire ballot who will not be indebted to special interests. They are:
For Mayor:
Mike Zinkin
For Council:
Matthew Rabb
Don Emmons
(no Web site)
I have heard Mike Zinkin and Matthew Rabb speak in front of the council, and they both are extremely articulate, intelligent, and compassionate candidates with a strong sense of public service and fiscal responsibility.
With best wishes,
Salette Latas

Zev said...

I, too, received that same e-mail; I was appalled! Here 'we' are discussing 'special interests' and, in addition, as Thinker brought up, the consideration by Council as to whether or not employees of the Town should have a 'right' to campaign for candidates, let alone whether or not a SITTING COUNCIL MEMBER who is a PAID employee of the Town, should have that same 'freedom'. My opinion: Town Council itself is a 'special interest', the factions therein are 'special interests', the Council Members are PAID EMPLOYEES of the Town, and, as a representative body elected by the residents of Town AND PAID BY SAME, they should be held to even a HIGHER STANDARD OF ETHIC AND RESPONSIBILITY then those who are accountable to them as Staff employees.

Please note that my post is not a reflection relative to the candidates themselves but I am appalled that a member of Council would sink to such a point as to 'advocate' for her 'selections' in this biased, self-serving manner. SHAME!

Zev said...

Now, back to the statement made by Christopher Fox: Christopher, there are many things one has to consider in dissecting a candidate's answer to any particular question: time constraints, how the question itself might be 'tainted'(have you stopped beating your wife?), and that sometimes (most of the time) the short answer leaves too many 'hanging chads'(additional questions themselves). Relative to the forums I have attended, each candidate has his or her own style of response and I think that might be a good thing except that there are time constraints that offer no 'wiggle' room. A lot of questions have no simple answers or the answerer might have to consider that an answer might be misconstrued either by accident or on purpose. In short, it is not an easy task.

I felt that the answers given by Mr. Zinkin in last Wednesday's Explorer were quite contrite as well as much more thoughtful than those of the other Mayoral candidates. Dr. Hiremaths statements seemed to me to be muddled and naive as well as questionably uninformed, Mayor Lomis's answers were what I would expect from a long term incumbent - nothing new, nothing creative, and nothing 'solid'. I believe that at least Mr. Zinkin is trying to take a fresh approach to not only the problems this Town faces, but as to how the Town, as a Whole, might operate as well. It's too easy to say we need more revenue, we need less expenditures, we need to be more business friendly, etc., etc., etc.; it's another to offer up some new, realistic, and creative potentials about the 'how tos'.

OV Objective Thinker said...

And I want to add to Zev's comments that it is shameless for Ms. Latas to send out such an e-mail 1 week after stating that she would oppose allowing Town employees doing exactly the same thing she chose to do.

I further believe that from this point on she should recuse herself from any further discussion on the subject of Town employees participation in the local election process.

artmarth said...

Two points---

1) Salette Latas has done an outstanding job working hard for the people of Oro Valley. Salette is not a candidate, and bringing her into the discussion is nothing but a ploy.

2) Where was Cox when his good friend Loomis continuously voted to give TREO OUR money while on its Board of Directors.

Where was Cox when his good friend Kunisch did everything the cops asked for and the real estate agents asked for notwithstanding the fact that he (Kunisch) is a volunteer policeman, with a real estate license.

Talk about hypocrisy!

Zev said...

Art, have to disagree that bringing Salette Latas's e-mail into focus is just a "ploy". 'Special interest' has been a subject of many a post on this site and I believe her pronouncement IS 'special interest' material. The Council IS engaging in the subject of 'employee campaigning' so this is pertinent in that respect also.

As to utilizing a comparison of Cox and 'friends' in this matter, this is irrelevant.

artmarth said...

The posting is why we believe Mike Zinkin is unequivocally the best man to lead Oro Valley.

Others can introduce superfluous comments about other issues.

However,the voters of Oro Valley will determine what they believe is in their best interests.

For us the choice is easy---Mike Zinkin!

Nombe Watanabe said...

According to Objetive Thinker (and others) EVERYBODY is a special interest. Therefore the distinction becomes meaningless.

If all employees receive an OUTSTANDING rating, then no one is outstanding.

Therefore, no more claims of SPECIALINTERESTABILITY will be entertained by the Nombe.

Than you and vote early and often. - NW

OV Objective Thinker said...


I am not a candidate and neither is Kunisch. Your attempt at deflection is as weak as your arguments in favor of your endorsed candidates.

I agree with brought "special interest endorsements" into this blog. And once again it is your own words and tactics that are coming home to haunt you.

artmarth said...

Nombe--- I must say I disagree with your take on "Special Interest Groups."

Let's take the OV Police Union as a case in point. They went on record of wanting our Town Manager David Andrews terminated (because David had the "audacity" to be concerned about our budget deficit.)

Shortly thereafter, Loomis & Carter along with Kunisch & Abbott took the drastic action of terminating David.

That is specifically why Special Interest Groups scare me, when they endorse candidates.

Mike Zinkin & Don Emmons did not want nor received any Special Interest support.

OV Objective Thinker said...

Nombe....Allow me a few syllables to clarify what I mean by 'special interest'.

I have an interest in this election. I believe our Town is headed in the wrong direction in it's relationship with the business community which will force us to impose a property tax well before we have to have one.

Art Segal and Salette Latas each have an agenda, i.e.,multiple goals on a multitude of topics and each uses their 'business' to support that agenda.

Art for instance wants no taxes, no parks, no police writing tickets to people who speed, run red lights and drive without their seat belt on, no development, no new homes and no body disagreeing with his agenda. And he uses his business 'The LOVE Blog' to promote that agenda. That's a special interest.

Salette wants no development unless it is a small mom and pop boutique built by a local builder, the Town to operate its own animal shelter, the police department to take over dog catcher duties, the police chief removed and Town employees to not have the same privileges she has when it comes to local elections. She uses her position on the Town Council and her business, Latas Group to forward her agenda. This too is a special interest in my opinion.

Hope this brings a bit of clarity.

And a side note about a previous post, in the second paragraph I omitted the word "not" from my post about the Latas e-mail.

artmarth said...

To Our Readers:

I must admit, I have a "special agenda" for Oro Valley.

I do NOT need Cox to enunciate my views. I am perfectly capable of doing that myself.

Some of my views are:

1) I do not desire a Propery Tax until we have a Town Council that is Fiscally Responsible and knows how to differentiate "wants from needs," and keeps expenditures below revenue---without raiding our contingency fund, as Loomis & Carter voted to do.

2) I do not want the town to expend $48.6 million or Loomis' desire to spend $160 million for a park. A park? Sure. But within our means.

3) I do not want the Oro Valley Police Unions demanding the termination of our Town Manager and telling us what is best for our community. (What's best for them is not what's best for us!)

I want people like Mike Zinkin & Dr. Don Emmons representing me, and staying true to their values.

I do NOT want any candidate to be beholden to me.I want them to be obligated to the people of Oro Valley.


Desert Voice said...


Zink's the man!

Let's look at the person, not just his position on issues. Getting things done, requires that the person can respect and convince others, not just have good ideas.

Zink sees his role as guardian of what the community wants, not his own agenda.

Warm, energetic,engaging, funny and enthusiastic, Zink's personality is an asset to invite new businesses to OV. All Council candidates cited the "user unfriendly" attitude of TOV as off putting and needing correction.

What does this say about the incumbent Mayor's legacy?

Sun City Dems asked Zink if he would cut the Police. Unequivocally Zink responded that a study was in progress and he would wait for its results and input from staff before deciding.
He forms his position based on input.

Can the other candidates say that?

His commitment to people may come from 40 years as a dedicated family man.

How do Loomis and Hiremath compare here?

"Look at the actions, not the words of a person" says psychology.

Apply the test of actions, and Zink wins hands down.

OinStarr said...

Could someone please answer whether ALL the candidates are invited to be interviewed by the so called special interest groups?

Did all the candidates participate in the interviewing sessions?

Did Art interview ALL the candidates in order to give his endorsement? Did Ms. Latas interview ALL the candidates as well?

If not, what qualifies either of them to highly recommend the best candidate?

OV Objective Thinker said...

Desert Voice....

I am making an assumption that you are a friend of Mike’s solely on the basis that you refer to him as “Zink”. If incorrect please let me know.

I too like Mike. He is a very nice person who has participated in the development of his community far beyond that average citizen. To that end I have a great deal of respect for Mike.

But he decided to run for the highest elected office in this community. And he was somewhat coerced into that decision. Mike originally wanted to run for a Town Council seat. It was Art Segal who, seizing on what he saw as an opportunity to better his own position (special interest), suggested to Mike that he run for the Mayoral position. You see, according to Dr. Don Emmons, he was originally going to run for the Mayoral position but he was completely unprepared to assume that role. Playing his ‘king-maker’ role (special interest), Art talked the two into switching positions. Mike’s decision to listen to Art and do what Art suggested is the first indication that Mike, at times, does not exercise good judgment.

But regardless of the process that placed Mike in the position he is in today, how in the world can you ask people to look at “the person, not just his positions”? In order to make an informed decision you MUST look at his positions and I submit they are far more important that his personal attributes.

While Mike’s “energetic, engaging, funny and enthusiastic” personality may be a wonderful asset, his anti-business actions while serving on the Development Review Board are seen far more clearly by the business community that his humor. The fact that he does not recognize that support of TREO and the MTCVB funnels positive income into our revenue stream is proof that he has not done his fiscal homework. The fact that he believes that the hands on a clock are more important than allowing a business to have their exterior lights on to attract customers which generate income to the Town indicates that he has no respect for small business. The fact that he didn’t know that seizure monies generated by our great police department could not be channeled into the Town’s general funds is a crystal clear indication that he doesn’t understand some basic fundamentals.

You stated, “Look at the actions, not the words of a person”. I agree with that statement and I ask you to remember that comment as you reflect on his business stance. I would also suggest that you apply that logic to his comments to the “Sun City Dems”. His response was just words. We have no actions on which to base a judgment. But I suppose that because he is “energetic, engaging, funny and enthusiastic” we should just roll over and accept his words.

OV Objective Thinker said...


I am not sure who you are refering to as the "special interest groups".

However,to the best of my knowledge, all candidates have been invited to all public and private forums.

Not all candidates have attended all forums.

Art Segal and Ms. Latas have, to the best of my knowledge, has not interviewed all of the candidates.

To the best of my knowledge, what qualifies them to endorse candidates is their ego and a belief that they know far more than most of the citizens of this community.

The Zee Man said...

Ok. Lets face it. Are likes Zinkin for Mayor. Thinker doesn't. Any surprise there? I think not.

Frankly, after meeting Mike, discussing the issues with him and learning how he approaches things, I was convinced that his talents would best serve the community if he were Mayor.

Apparently, others felt the same way, because Mike decided to seek the Mayoral position.

Mike doesn't operate in a vacuum. He seeks facts. He seeks input. A fresh approach, you think?

He's going to be a "breath of fresh air" as our Mayor.

It is folly to believe that Art or any one individual has the "power" to tell Mike Zinkin or Don Emmons what to do. They are independent thinkers. To think otherwise just doesn't cut with reality.

OV Objective Thinker said...

Zeeman....Call it what you wish. I don't believe that "folly" is an accurate description. I am only relating what has been told to me face-to-face. I do believe that Town documents will verify that Mike originally pulled papers for a Council seat.

Your comments also confirm that you were part of a team effort to change Mike's mind. Having that bit of information begs the questions, "Why the switch and why did it take place only after Dr. Emmons came forward as a Mayoral candidate?"

The plot thickens.

The Zee Man said...

I was not part of any team.

There is no conspiracy theory.

This is getting tiresome.


Move on.

See where we stand in March.

Desert Voice said...


Agreed: OVOT does not support Zink.
Vote and move on.


No, you are incorrect. Mike and I were not friends but are coming to know each other through the election.

You distort my words.

While business issues are important to the development of the town, they are not its only resource. PEOPLE...PEOPLE...PEOPLE
are the most precious resource of this community and make OV the desirable place to be.

While you attack Zink's decisions about business issues, you do not defend the other candidates' lifestyle choices. Very interesting.

OV wants to support and attract young families. Will these families want someone in the top job who does not commit to marriage? What kind of role model will that be for their children? Or do you, as a business man, grant immunity to such a candidate because he is a business man?

What you may accept on a personal level is very different from an elected official.

OV Objective Thinker said...

Desert Voice....I don't belkieve stating an opinion that differs with Mike's on his approach to business falls into the "attack" category. I simply disagree and so state.

Secondly, I doubt that any candidate will be elected based on their approach to matrimony and I really doubt that any human being refuses to locate in Oro Valley based on the marital preferences of the Mayor.

Have a great day.


Did you and Art break up? :-)

See you on the 22nd.


Salette said...

special-interest group

or spe•cial in•ter•ests



group trying to influence government policy: a group seeking to influence government policy in favor of an interest or issue

Art is not a special interest; he’s an interested citizen. This blog has contributors with various interests. It does not speak with one voice. As with many forms of media, it is made up of many voices. It is not seeking to influence government policy in favor of any particular interest or issue. It just gets people talking about many interests and issues. Certainly the perspective of the blogmaster is the jumping-off point for all discussions. That’s just the way blogging works. Read a different blog or start your own if you don’t like this one.

Neither are the members of the town council a special interest. They are the elected representatives of the town. They are the policy makers that special interest groups are trying to influence.

Mr. Cox claims: “From the Town Council dias Ms. Latas stated that she would OPPOSE allowing Town employees to participate in local elections on their own time.”

This is the first of a long list of untrue statements that Mr. Cox made about me or attributed to me in this thread.

Salette said...

The topic of employee political activity was discussed at the January 20 council meeting.
You can watch the video here under item 5:

You’ll see that I never made any such statement. (You can also hear Matt Rabb address the council.)

You can read the item under discussion here:

You’ll see that the town has not prohibited, nor were we discussing, any sort of prohibitions on employees expressing their opinions or endorsing candidates on their own time.

You’ll see on the last page of the communication, “As elected officials, the Mayor and Council are exempt from these employee requirements.”

That’s why we did not discuss on January 20 the question of whether or not it was proper for a sitting council member to pass a petition for a candidate, which has happened.

Mr. Rosen’s memo of September 15, 2009, upheld this distinction between elected officials and employees.

I do thank Mr. Cox for posting my e-mail in its entirety. That is the only accurate communication that he made about me or attributed to me.

I received many positive responses to my e-mail. Some of them asked who I was supporting or for whom I was voting, so obviously not everybody believes that I was making an endorsement.

Mr. Cox wrote, “And I want to add to Zev's comments that it is shameless for Ms. Latas to send out such an e-mail 1 week after stating that she would oppose allowing Town employees doing exactly the same thing she chose to do.”

This is the second of Mr. Cox’s untrue statements. He goes on to make several more untrue statements about my positions and ends with the preposterous statement, “She uses her position on the Town Council and her business, Latas Group to forward her agenda.”

I don’t have a business named Latas Group. I don’t even know of a business named Latas Group. If you go to the URL, you can see pictures of my dogs. It’s my personal site. I'll have to update it one of these days.

OinStarr asked if all the candidates are invited to be interviewed by the special interest groups. I don’t know the answer to that. When I was running for office, I was not interviewed by any employee unions or by the Southern Arizona Home Builders Association (SAHBA). I have heard that SAHBA did invite candidates this year, although only after their Government Affairs Liaison (lobbyist) had already passed petitions for one candidate.

I have met all the candidates and have had a chance to hear their views. I would be happy to give my recommendations to any Oro Valley voter who contacts me at my personal e-mail address (

Victorian Cowgirl said...


You state that, "Mr. Segal and his blog are a 'special interest.'" You state that, "Art has an agenda and this blog and his postings support his own agenda (special interest)."

Therefore, ANYONE who posts on this blog, including you, is a special interest. That's not MY definition of special interest.

I don't see this blog as a special interest group because Art/The Blog are not raising money to support any candidate and they are not running ads in the newspaper supporting any candidate. I said this in an earlier posting...a candidate is more likely to feel beholden to an organization that raised a lot of money for their campaign and/or that published endorsements in the newspaper because when that candidate runs for re-election, they will want those same organizations to help them get elected again.

That's why I prefer to vote for candidates who are NOT endorsed by ACTUAL special interest groups. If what I want is in direct opposition to what the Chamber wants or what the police union wants, there is no incentive for the endorsed candidate to listen to or care about my views.

You stated that council members also have an agenda and "they want allies on the council that will assist in the forwarding of that agenda" And if YOU were on the council, wouldn't YOU want the same thing?

You think its hypocrisy if we're OK with Art or Salette endorsing a candidate when we're not OK with ORGANIZATIONS endorsing candidates. But the difference is that Art and Salette are not donating thousands of dollars to anyone's campaign and they are not spending hundreds of dollars to run Explorer ads endorsing any particular candidate. They're just stating their views to anyone who cares to listen.

That's why, using your words, "that kind of an endorsement is OK."

If someone isn't interested in Art's views, they don't have to read this blog. If someone isn't interested in Salette's views, they don't have to subscribe to her e-mail list.

Victorian Cowgirl said...


When Art brought up your relationship with Kunisch, you responded, "I am not a candidate and neither is Kunisch."

OK, so why do you keep bringing Salette into the argument? She is not a candidate either!

Desert Voice said...

Bravo to Salette and V Cowgirl!


Many women voters will be offended by the other candidates lifestyle choices. Have you considered how many women are part of the Christian Right?

My guess, OVOT, that you and yours never weighed in on what McNamara's candid info would do to voters who are religious and female.

Victorian Cowgirl said...


You said, "Not all candidates have attended all forums."

To which I must state that YOU have not attended ANY forums. I know this because I have attended all of them and you were not present at ANY of them.

I know you interviewed them as a member of the Chamber, but as such, you only know their answers to THOSE questions and how they presented themselves in front of the chamber. You have not heard their answers to questions posed by the general public nor have you seen how each one presents themselves in a public forum.

Why have you shown no interest in this?

Zev said...

'Special Interest': "A person or group seeking to influence legislative or government policy to further often narrowly defined interests" - Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

Let the shoe fit whomever or whatever it may. Let those who wish, parse to their advantage, whatever they may.

Frankly, I am sick and tired of all of the dung that has permeated the politics of this Town and am tired of all of the baloney that is mixed within it; it just doesn't make for a tasty sandwich. I have no more comments here, it's all been said. Yes, the blogmaster posts an introduction to a stream and then we, the people, have to pussyfoot around our reactions in order not to offend or we'll be crucified for it. The mentality of some of the introductions, posts, and posters, as presented here, would be best left to a kindergarten. The blind try to lead the blind and the blind say 'yes, master'. Egos are oblivious to their own creation and maintain that they are of superior value and we, the people, must bow to them. Even elected leadership sets itself above the people and
throws out 'attitude'. THIS IS A WHOLE BOWL OF WRONG!

artmarth said...

To those that may not realize it---Everyone has a choice to read our blog or not.

Everyone has a choice to comment or not.

As an astute blogger noted just the other day----if you don't like what we say or who we choose to support, start your own blog.

That's exactly what The Zeeman & I did a few years ago.

From the emails & text messages we receive, we have many more advocates than detractors.

Could it be because we are the voice of the overwhelming majority of Oro Valley residents?


OVDad said...

This is the second time I am commenting here, because I can no longer take it.

This statement has driven me insane:

OV wants to support and attract young families. Will these families want someone in the top job who does not commit to marriage? What kind of role model will that be for their children? Or do you, as a business man, grant immunity to such a candidate because he is a business man?

... and then the justification by Desert Voice. Are you people out of your mind? Do you honestly think that young families care about that? Is this the 50's? Get up to today please. I myself was raised in a family where the parents were not married, yet they are truly loving and caring. This statement is nothing less than an insult - and I demand an apology!

And honestly, let's not take these jobs too seriously. Knowing a bit about the youth in Oro Valley, I can guarantee you that less than 5% of the students at the high schools know the name of the mayor.

This blog is 90% smear hidden behind terms like "citizen centricity" and "no special interest". And thanks to you, Art, I now know that I no longer need to read it and will do so.

OV Objective Thinker said...


You are beginning to sound less logical each time you enter these waters. (No offense to Lou)

"Therefore, ANYONE who posts on this blog, including you, is a special interest."

That is a silly (far to nice of a term )statement. The folks that post on this blog are primarily posting some form of response to the "proprietor's" bovine excrement or another's response.

You don't have to raise money to be a special interest.

You need to go back and reread my comments and clearly decipher what I was talking about when I used the word "hypocracy" Your response doesn't come close to hitting the mark.

As for your comment about my attendance at the forums. AS you know I was at the OVPD prescription take back event during the library event. I was visiting my ill mother-in-law during the NPCCC event. I did however watch the chamber recording of the candidates and was able to see their respons to all of the questions. I have spent far more time with these candidates than you have. Therefore I am reminded of the old expression about those who live in glass houses.

OV Objective Thinker said...

Ms. Latas....I would suggest that you pay more attention to the proceedings. Mr. Kunisch made a motion to allow town employees to participate on their own time. You stated that you would oppose that motion.

If you cannot see the hypocracy then there is no need to repeat it. You hide behind a Town policy when it is convenient.

If you vote(and I believe you are not in a positio0n to do so fairly considering your actions) to prohibit Town employees from participation then you should also ask that the policy regarding the conduct of Council members be reflective of the same prohibitions.

It's called fairness.

The LatasGroup is in the business of endorsing candidates for your own special interest.

Desert Voice said...

OV Dad,

Sorry for your circumstances growing up...and glad that you felt the love of two parents even though they were not married.

This is an issue only if you are a running for public office. Unless you run for an elected office, what happens in your private life is your business. Once you jump into the public arena, all aspects of your life are under scrutiny.

Are you a candidate?

Victorian Cowgirl said...


You mentioned hypocrisy in two separate posts. One post referred to the "hypocrisy" of Art stating that certain candidates should not be trusted because they're supported by special interests (eg. Chamber of Commerce) while at the same time Art himself is endorsing candidates. My follow-up comment referred to that statement.

You also said that Art's postings support his agenda and that makes him a special interest. I took that a step further and stated that this would mean that everyone who posts is doing so to support their own agenda and that makes all of us, including you, a special interest. Of course his posts support his agenda, just as your posts support your agenda and mine support mine, etc. We all have an agenda, don't we? I was just pointing out that according to your logic, that makes all of us a special interest.

Since you seem to think that everyone who posts on this blog is a special interest and everyone who endorses a candidate is a special interest and all the town council members are special interests, can you tell us exactly who is NOT a special interest?

I just think it's "silly" that you seem to be more concerned/threatened by a one-person "special interest" than you are by an entire organization that lobbies for their own special interest.

You also said that it was "hypocrisy at its finest" for "both" [Art and Salette] to endorse candidates.

THOSE are the comments I was referring to. I did not comment on the other posting you made about Salette's supposed "hypocrisy" because Salette had already defended herself on that issue.

Victorian Cowgirl said...


Regarding your lack of attendance at the forums, yes, I did know that you were at the OVPD prescription take-back event during the Library forum. I didn't know you were visiting a sick relative during the Chamber forum. For what reason did you also miss the Sun City forum?

How do you know that you've spent more time with the candidates than I have?

I spent 2 hours with the candidates at the Library forum, 1.5 hours at the Chamber forum (I left early), and 1.5 hours at the Sun City forum. Two of the candidates have also been to my house and we've had telephone conversations and e-mails going back and forth.

I'm not an amateur, you know. I've spent more time with these town council candidates (who, when elected will represent 40,000 people) than McCain spent with Palin before choosing HER to be the Vice-President (who, if elected would have represented 300 million people). Yeah, I just had to throw that in there. :)

OVDad said...

"Sorry for your circumstances growing up...and glad that you felt the love of two parents even though they were not married."

Desert Voice,

Even though they are not married? My point was being married has nothing to do with loving your children. Absolutely nothing. There is no causation, and the correlation is probably really small as well. How many children were beaten by married parents? Your views are absolutely ancient and completely absurd. It is the views of ignorant residents like you that will keep young families out of Oro Valley (guess what, increasingly they decide not to marry although they have children), not the private situation of our mayor or town council member.

Nombe Watanabe said...

Marriage? Christian Right? Life-Style?

Where did all of this crap come from?

We should care about taxes and city services and the best candidates for our town.

Concentrate on the issues. Vote, move on.

Salette said...

All Oro Valley residents, including those who are also town employees, are of course encouraged to vote, sign petitions, and express opinions on their own time.

The motion that I said I would oppose was to have Policy 29 changed to remove Item 2 which says "No employee may take part in the campaign of a candidate participating in an Oro Valley municipal election."

Two citizens had spoken against changing the policy. None spoke in favor. All employees had agreed to this policy as a condition of employment. No department directors had asked that the policy be changed. No employees had asked that the policy be changed.

And the majority of the council agreed that they were not ready to support CM Kunicsh’s motion on January 20. That’s why we voted to continue it.

Employees are also prohibited from running for office in Oro Valley. Obviously, council members are not. That’s one reason that council members are not prohibited from participating in campaigns.

CM Kunisch circulated petitions for a candidate, and I don’t have any problem with that. I do not think that council members or candidates for council should solicit donations from employees or otherwise solicit their support. I would be in favor of placing that restriction on elected officials.

Salette said...

From the draft minutes:

Chris DeSimone, Oro Valley resident, spoke about how employees work for elected officials whether they are on or off the clock. He stated that they are municipal employees so it would be a classic conflict of interest.

Matthew Rabb, Oro Valley resident and Oro Valley candidate for councilmember, stated that political pressure occurs during and after work hours. He also stated that the Town and its employees should avoid practicing political justice, and that it is important to the public that employees appear to be avoiding political justice so that confidence in the Town's Council-Management form of government is not corroded.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Kunisch and seconded by Vice Mayor Carter to have Policy 29 changed and remove Item 2 which says "No employee may take part in the campaign of a candidate participating in an Oro Valley municipal election." (SEE AMENDED MOTION)

Mayor Loomis asked for clarification regarding the handout of Policy 31 - Conflict of Interest. Town Attorney Rosen reported that currently the Personnel Policy states this is Policy 29, and has since the last revision in 2007.

Vice-Mayor Garner stated that if employees were to go door-to-door soliciting, the public could be confused as to if they were there on behalf of the Town or not.

Councilmember Gillaspie commented that this provision really protects employees from retribution from politicians. He stated that this policy gets to the heart of using political power to influence elections which should be minimized at the local level as this is where real services are delivered.

Councilmember Latas agreed that this provision protects employees from undue pressure from political candidates.

Mayor Loomis asked Councilmember Kunisch to amend his motion to continue this item to the next Council meeting and to have staff come back with a definition of what "taking part in the campaign of a candidate" means. Councilmember Kunisch agreed and would like to include information as to what other communities are doing in the state.

MOTION: A motion was made by Mayor Loomis and seconded by Council Member Kunisch to amend the motion to continue this item to the next meeting in February (the third week) and ask staff to come back with definitions of what "take any part in the campaign of a candidate" means and to include information from other communities in the state.

MOTION to amend carried, 6-1, with Council Member Gillaspie opposed.

MOTION as amended carried, 7-0.

artmarth said...

One minor clarification to Salette's last comment.

She referred to KC Carter as "Vice Mayor Carter," and Bill Garner as "Vice Mayor."

Carter was at the time Vice Mayor. Bill is now the Vice Mayor.

Salette said...

Thanks, Art. That's a correction that needs to be made in the minutes.

OV Objective Thinker said...

To All....The bottom line to some of Ms. Latas' post is that it is completely false information.

Just go to the video and LISTEN!!!

More to follow.

OV Objective Thinker said...

I would strongly suggest to everyone who reads this blog to hang on to your ballot until Friday as there will be important information available to you that MAY make a difference on who you vote for in the Town Council election.



OV Objective Thinker said...

Disregard my last post....I cannot at this time confirm as fact and therfore, vote and move on.

Desert Voice said...

OV Dad,

With the Moral Majority, retirees who struggled to remain married into Golden years to #1 spouse because their families gave that example, their church and Jesus Christ encouraged that, and because of the widespread disintegration of family as the basic unit of society, you are out of touch with reality. If you think this is DV's voice only,let the voters tell you themselves with their ballot.

Therapists couches are filled with children from dysfunctional families, symptom of US's disintegrating morals. Yes, we support those who suffered from these experiences but do not foster it as a lifestyle choice. Quite the opposite. Families provide children with a microcosm of how to live in society.

Why not commit to a person you've shared 28 years with or the mother of three of your children if you love that person so much? Those choices make hugh statements about
about one's ability to commit, to share, to care, to provide stability and how you view women as objects not equal partners.

Oro Valley needs vibrant moral fiber to survive and thrive in these times. Mike Zinkin is the mayoral candidate who best exemplifies this in my opinion.