Those of us that don't know Emil Franzi, are probably familiar with his column in The Explorer or, perhaps his radio show, Inside Track on KVOI 690AM on Sat afternoons.
Franzi has been an astute observer of Oro Valley politics for decades, and I for one, usually agree with his unique way of saying what's on his mind.
His column in the June 4 Explorer "tells it as it is" as far as our newly elected town council.
I believe ALL Oro Valley citizens should pay close attention to Franzi's advice as noted here.
Thank you Emil!
http://www.explorernews.com/articles/2008/06/04/opinion/editorials/doc4845d5d5047b3430993590.txt
33 comments:
Art, thanks for directing our attention to the interesting article by Mr. Franzi. The following comment by him should be of great interest to us who read this blog; "What will test the new council majority is their desire to actually govern. Proof that changes are more than cosmetic will be evidenced early by three items: their choice of vice mayor, the town’s relationship with the Pima Association of Governments, and who is town attorney." In a clear challenge to the OV council, Mr. Franzi points out that it's now time to govern. The voters of OV have placed great faith in the new council, as evidenced by the margin of votes that those new council members were able to garner (no pun intended). It is now their time to make decisions based upon careful analysis of what those voters desire; fiscal responsibility, actions independent of outside influences, civility in public meetings and above all, respect for differing opinions. The answer to Mr. Franzi's question is simple; yes, the new Council will matter. How they "matter" is up to them.
Franzi makes some interesting points, although I would disagree with him about the Town Attorney since that selection has already been made. The Vice Mayor position is meaningless, but it does require someone who--if called upon--has a good grasp of Robert's Rules, the Town Code and the Arizona Revised Statutes as well as the ability to follow a discussion so that motions, amendments and other parliamentary rules are clearly understood. My view of members Carter and Abbott are that they do not meet these criteria.
The world looks a whole lot different from the other side of the dais. You can imagine how difficult it is for any Council person to sit there during the "Call to the Audience" and not engage in conversation with whoever is at the podium because the issue being raised hasn't been agendized(that's an oversimplification of the Open Meeting Laws). It sure looks rude, but this might be the one case where perceptions do not equal reality. The Council can ask that the issue be placed on a future agenda, and they may respond to questions, but that's it. So what do you get? The "7 wide-eyed monkey look" from the Council members. Rude? No. Frustrating for everyone? Yes.
Unless the new Council members can forge a majority of 4 votes consistently, not much will change. And since they're not allowed to discuss agendized issues outside of Council meetings, we'll all get to watch the process of sausage being made at every meeting--not as much fun as watching "American Gladiator," but local governance is a contact sport.
By the way, I'm still waiting for a show of hands from every blogger here who went back and checked his or her mutual fund holdings to see if they held Wal-Mart stock. Did you withdraw your money from those funds as a sign of protest? Do you read the prospectuses (prospecti?) and annual reports? Did you vote your proxy in the last fund election?
It's more than just NOT shopping somewhere if you want to impact a large corporation. At this point--what would you prefer--a failed Super Wal-Mart at OV Marketplace or a successful Super Wal-Mart that brings in sales tax revenue to the town, even if shared for 10 years? Sorry--those are your only two choices, so pick one.
I would prefer a failed Wal-Mart. I would prefer finding another way to bring in sales tax revenue. Wal-Mart is not the only store in the world, for Pete's sake!
Tundra....
Your final sentence is powerful.
Admittedly, I am skeptical but quite willing to withhold judgement until the new members get their feet on the ground. They will quickly learn that some of their statements made during the many candidate forums cannot be realized without costly lawsuits. Even the last "new" council found that out the hard way. Remember Beztek???
Best of luck to Salette, Bill and continued success to Barry.
Boobie-baby...
I think you also left out the part about it being difficult to property act as Vice-Mayor when you miss and/or are late nearly 40%of the time.
Cowgirl...I am saddened by your comment.
To wish failure on any business that employes workers in dire need of an income, generates revenue for local residents and actively supports local community events is shameful.
The fulfillment of your wish will hurt hundreds of others. Surely you can't be that calloused.
Thinker,
The fulfillment of Vestar's wish will hurt thousands of people, decreasing their property values, increasing crime, congesting our roadways, etc. Vestar's attitude towards OV residents was callous. Wal-Mart's attitude towards its employees and the environment is callous.
The same could be said about any development that would have been placed on that corner. So it isn't Vestar. It isn't Wal Mart. It is simply a case that you wanted "nothing" there.
Boobie-baby,
Too bad you had to bring this discussion back to the Wal-Mart/ Vestar issue. Now we'll have to put up with 37 posts beating that dead horse.
I doubt that many blogites will raise their hands regarding the distribution of their portfolio investments. But, many will look forward to their never-ending rants either vilifying or defending the Wal-Mart company.
I was hoping to stimulate discussions that may enlighten our new Council regarding the challenges and expectations that face them.
To fromdatundra:
Good point, and perhaps my comments about Wal-Mart should have been made on another portion of the blog.
But the issue still remains of expectations of a "new" Council. There are rules, laws and policy that must be followed, and however much they may disagree about those rules and policies, they have to follow them until they can muster 4 votes to change them. Working cordially with fellow Council members is not this group's strong suit.
Past decisions (like the Wal-Mart tax sharing) are just that--past decisions. Let's judge this Council by a)any changes in policy or ordinances that they can agree to, and b) their ability to follow the existing laws and policies.
It's easy to vote against an issue when you know darn well that you'll be on the losing end of a 6-1 or 5-2 vote. I would prefer a Council that makes 7-0 decisions after all concerns have been aired in public. Again, the members' abilities to forge coalitions will be crucial to any changes everyone might be expecting. Bill and Salette, alone, cannot do that. So, let's see who they align themselves with on different issues, or they're likely to be the 2 of the 5-2 vote, and bloggers here will be sorely disappointed.
Thinker,
I said I would rather have nothing than what we're getting. My first choice was something upscale and unique, as we were promised.
If we had gotten something upscale and unique, it would not have decreased property values at all, and it would not have increased crime or increased congestion to the extent that Wal-Mart will, so you are wrong when you say that, "The same could be said about any development that would have been placed on that corner."
What would you rather see built across the street from your home...Wal-Mart or Williams-Sonoma? A strip joint or Ann Taylor? Circle K or Sprouts Market? Which one would change the face of your neighborhood for the worse? They are not all the same as you would like to believe.
Boobie-baby,
You said, regarding Bill and Salette, "they're likely to be the 2 of the 5-2 vote, and bloggers here will be sorely disappointed."
I just returned from their first council meeting where most votes went 7-0. The only one that was split was the vote on whether to let Doug McKee's P&Z term continue until January 1, 2009. It was a 5-2 split alright, but the 2 who were against it were Loomis and Kunisch. There were lots of big smiles in the audience, including my own, after witnessing how that vote turned out.
I left after that vote so I don't know the voting results after that.
Terry also gave a very thoughtful farewell speech.
Cowgirl....
If you are going to compare apples to apples, etc, then I think it is a bit of a stretch to compare a strip joint to Ann Taylor, Wal-Mart to Williams-Sonoma and Sprouts to Circle K. First of all, it is silly for folks to make an attempt to describe "upscale" and "unique". It is all in the mind and eyes of the beholder. There are some that would look at Wal Mart and think it is unique. I happen to believe that none of your selections are upscale and unique. A spatula, is a spatula is a spatula. The only difference is that you will pay much more for the same thing at WS. The cake doesn't bake or taste any differently if the mix is removed from the mixing bowl with a Wal-Mart item versus a WS item.
All will increase crime because they produce more traffic than was previously present. There will be more police calls at Oracle and Tangarine than before because now there are none. Every mall increases police calls simply because there are more people attracted to the area. You would be amazed at the police calls that are made to the Target Center at Rooney Ranch.
As for property values there will be some adjustment because of the view shed not the kinds of commercial establishments. As pointed out by another poster, a roof is a roof. But I believe that the physical appearance of this project will have less of an impact than let's say a Foothills Mall where little was done to make it look attractive, thanks to Pima County development standards.
The 5-2 vote last evening was troubling.If the chair of the P&Z had been any other person that Doug Mckee that issue would have never come before the Council. Carter was just looking out for his friend Doug McKee. It had nothing to do with additional work, or the complexity of the work. And the other Council members went along like baby quail following their parent. It was an insult, on Carter's part, to the remaining members of the P&Z. What Carter told them was they were incapable of accomplishing their duties without Doug McKee. There were qualified people (some more qualified than Mr. McKee)interviewed and ready to serve.
If they wish to discuss term limits, then do so. But don't single out one person (because he is your buddy), and show him favoritism over the many other board and commission members solely because he is your buddy. I would hope that in the future there will be more in-depth analysis done on the part of Council members on the question before them.
Just a couple of observations
boobie baby, you state that "working cordially with fellow council members is not this group's strong suit"; do you not think that it is a bit premature to assess in this manner? You wrote this even prior to their 1st meeting, so it appears that your comment is based on speculation rather than on actuality. That you "would prefer a council that makes 7-0 decisions" I find perplexing; it appears that you might favor capitulation rather than diversity; I personally, prefer the latter. I think that only when the 'dust settles' will anyone, including myself, be able to fully adjust and determine the realities of this council.
Having attended the council meeting last night, I thought that it progressed in the spirit of dignity and respect; hopefully that mindset will continue. Terry Parish departed in a very warm and astute manner; the debates / discussions were, albeit few, were engaging. I do feel that Town Staff needs to speak with improved clarity as requests for specific clarifications were abundant.
Cowgirl and Zev...Both of your recent posts pointed out two interesting things relative to the recent Council meeting: 1. the meeting was productive and conducted in a spirit of dignity and respect and; 2. Mr. Parish departed after a "warm...astute, thoughtful speech." For the benefit of we who were unable to attend or watch the meeting on cable TV, would you both please expand on your observations?
Many thanks.
fromdatundra
Relative to my reference to dignity and respect, it appeared to me that the council was truly interested in getting to definitions and details and expressing their resulting opinions without superflous
comments or attitude. I thought that good questions were asked, valid statements were made, and individual conclusions were in keeping with real concerns without
any expression of disdain for opposing convictions.
Mr. Parish made a compelling
address regarding his dedication, his beliefs, his service. He also was graciously thankful for having had the opportunity to serve and expressed some of his wishes for the future. He departed on a very positive note.
Although I was pleased at how the Council conducted themselves last night, I have to comment that coming to 7-0 votes on most of the agenda items was not a tall order considering last nights agenda. I believe boobie-baby's comment about 7-0 votes is well taken in that it always makes for stronger legislative action when the entire Council can come to an agreement, as opposed to a 4-3 split. That's not to say that there will not be disagreements and discussions, but if the Council members can wade through everything and come to a consensus decision, it's better for the Town. As for fromdatundra's request for information on last night's meeting, I watched it this morning online - it's available through the Town's website under "Official Meetings - Video" on the right side of the home page - hope that helps.
Zev Cywan
What an outstanding report. Hopefully, the actions you observed portend similar conduct during the tenure of the new Town Council. This is obviously the best approach to carrying out the people's business.
We are not naive, however. As I've reflected in a previous post, the measure of the maturity of this Council will come in times of contentious debate. I truly believe that those we have recently elected will stand firm to their stated convictions. We can only hope that they will never waiver from embracing the positive characteristics that have been described in my opening post; namely, fiscal responsibility, council actions independent of (selfish) "outsider" influences, civility in public meetings, and above all respect for the differing opinions of our citizens.
The new Council's "honeymoon period" has begun. Here's to a prosperous and happy union!
As for Mr. Parish...it sounds like he left with class. Great!
Thinker,
I guess my question about what would you rather see built across the street from your home was a really tough one for you to answer, because you answered like a politician. You turned the question into something else and then you responded to that. I never mentioned anything about upscale or unique. I just chose a few different types of entities and asked what you would rather see. By not answering, you answered loud and clear. Notice when someone asks me a question, I answer the specific question they asked. I don't turn it into a different question. That's because I'm not afraid to say what I think.
You mentioned police reports. OK. That was my point. Would you rather have a Circle K across the street or a Sprouts? Which one receives more police calls? And on a separate note, which one generates more litter? Do you think there are more police calls to a strip joint or to Ann Taylor?
By the way, I do have the police report for the Target plaza at Rooney Ranch. I've been trying to get the reports for Foothills Mall vs. La Encantada mall (from the Pima County Sheriff's Dept) for months but have consistently been told that there is a "glitch" in the computer system and they can't print out these reports. Having the Target report is useless if I have nothing to compare it to. By the way, getting the Target report from the OV Police was simple and quick. I had it in one day.
Regarding Doug McKee, the arguments FOR extending his appointment were much stronger than the arguments AGAINST it. They also discussed changing the P&Z terms for ALL the commissioners to end on January 1, and they discussed the reason for wanting this change, so this isn't just about Doug McKee. You conveniently left out that FACT.
And Carter never told anyone or even implied that the P&Z was incapable of accomplishing their duties without Doug. That is your own "take" on things because just like the way you twisted my question, you like to twist everything into something else...something you can argue with.
Well, it's good to see that the Council is off to a collegial start. A 7-0 vote on issues is important for the reasons that Cyclone 1 had made. But, equally important, is the realization by any Council member that sometimes you just don't get the "whole loaf." Too many times we have seen a Council member vote "Nay" on an issue because there was one niggling little point or issue that wasn't resolved to his or her satisfaction. That's the kind of pettiness that destroys the the reputation of local elected officials.
Likewise, we have seen Council members vote "Nay" when, if the majority had done the same, would have placed the Town into a courtroom time after time after time. So, these meaningless "Nay" votes become nothing more than grandstanding. Council member Abbott may be the best (or worst) example of such voting, although the others (with the exception of the two newbies) have done it as well.
Oro Valley continues to be a desirable community in which to live or we wouldn't all be here. Who knows what's to come? Let's get behind this Council to keep our parks, libraries, streets, and public safety operations sufficiently funded while not forgetting that the demographics of the Town are growing younger with more needs for recreational and cultural activities and venues. It appears that Bill and Salette can help to represent that demographic.
And, yes, everyone will finally get their opportunity to weigh in on the initial infrastructure and ballfields on the Naranja Town Site. You can't find fault with holding an election. Either it passes or it doesn't, and the Council will have to live with the results.
All in all, an interesting two years coming up--stay tuned.
Cowgirl....
Your question was a theoretical one. And I gave you a theoretical answer. None of them can be built right across the street from my house. That's the most accurate answer.
Had I said a strip club, Wal Mart and Circle K you would have called me a pervert!!! :-) If I said the others, then you would have replied that I would like to have something upscale and unique. So I simply saved you a posting.
As to some of your other points, I don't have the facts to support an answer, but I would guess that there are more police calls to a strip joint than an Ann Taylor. I would also say that the amount of litter is directly proportionate to the effectiveness of the management on duty at either at any given time.
I have also received the police reports from the WM area in Sahuarita. It was relatively low. I am seeking the reports from Marana. It will be difficult to compare unless you can get some meaningful numbers on the numbers of people that visit the sites. Naturally, the more people the more calls you will get. But if you can quantify it with the number per 1000 visitors then you might be able to generate some interesting data.
You can spin the McKee thing any way you wish. If Doug was not on the P&Z the issue would have never come up. Your point about extending the term of others has no validity as their current term will go far beyond Jan 1 as it is.
There is no need for any change at this time.
Thinker,
Regarding extending the terms of others, no it won't apply to the current members whose terms are not expiring now anyway. They want to discuss extending the term in the future so it will end on January 1 for everyone elected in the future. They explained their rationale for this which I understood and am in agreement with.
I didn't spin the McKee thing. I stated the facts from the meeting. You are the one who is spinning it. You were not at the meeting so you are making assumptions.
Now you won't answer my question because it is "theoretical." When I asked you a rhetorical question, you answered that one. You're just avoiding answering because you don't want to admit that, if you HAD to make a choice, you would prefer something less "offensive."
Vestar's projections are all theories, but you defend them as if they are fact. C'mon!
If someone asked me, "If George W. Bush could run for a third term, would you vote for him again?" I wouldn't say, "I can't answer that because it's theoretical. It can't happen according to our Constitution." I would say, "No, I would not vote for him."
The world won't come to an end because I answered a theoretical question.
boobie baby and cyclone1
While your contention that a 7-0 vote might be [more compelling], I find that 'split' voting is more of a validation of our democratic / diverse ideology. A proposal is made (transparently), discussion is provided, a motion is made, a motion is seconded, a vote is called for and, SPONTANEOUSLY AND COLLECTIVELY, a vote is taken. In most cases a simple majority is required for the motion to pass or fail; in some instances considered to be of higher 'importance', a larger majority may be required. In addition, by respecting the ideal of simple majority vote, endless argument can be avoided; as well, the fact that there might not be a full consensus on any given item is an indication that complicity is not a factor. That the Supreme Court of the United States does not require a full consensus in order that a constitutional interpretation be given to a specific presentation, in my opinion, is a very strong argument for the strength of democracy by a diversity of the vote.
Zev,
You make a good point about dissent and its value, although I don't think anyone would compare the U.S. Supreme Court to the Oro Valley Town Council.
What I'm looking for is unanimity of purpose that is for the greater good. Certainly, there will be times when policy interpretation or implementation will cause 4-3 or 5-2 votes.
But what I would like to hear more often from a Council member is this: "While there are certain aspects of X, Y or Z that I don't support 100%, there's enough here for me to vote 'Aye' on the motion for this issue to move forward." The point gets made, and the Council can then move on.
This would help to cut down on the grandstanding that I referred to, and would also show respect for fellow Council members who may have made the original motions.
No one is perfect, and sitting behind the dais doesn't give you immutable powers of insight and intelligence that you lacked the day before. But collegiality would be a welcome change on the Council, even if everyone didn't get 100% of what he or she wanted 100% of the time, right?
I don't see a 7-1 vote as grandstanding by the one person who voted differently. I see it as voting your conscience. I prefer this to someone "going along just to get along."
Cowgirl.....
Allow me just a moment to remind you that I spent 5 years on the P&Z. I was one of the people that interviewed Doug McKee and recommended his appointment. I served with Doug for over a year. I know Doug. I also know KC Carter VERY well. I know the relationship between KC and Doug. On this subject I am eminently qualified to speak. This was a political buddy set up.
KC paid off his buddy for past favors. KC violated every standard for allowing qualified candidates to sit on P&Z. MARK my words....this will come back to haunt him!!!
Wal-Mart is coming. They will contribute tax money to the Oro Valley revenue fund. It's done. It will not change. Let's move on to more important stuff!!!!!
Vic CG-
If you ever see a 7-1 vote, call the Associated Press since there are only 7 people on the Council. Of course, if you count egos....
All kidding aside, a 6-1 vote for "conscience" is admirable, but doesn't accomplish anything. Remember--is it everyone else who is driving the wrong way on the freeway, or just that one lonely driver who thinks HE's right and everyone else is heading in the wrong direction?
Boobie Baby,
Sorry about my typo. But your ego comment was very funny!
Victorian Cowgirl
The commission members are appointed not elected.
Perhaps the argument for extending terms should apply to the new council as the General Plan Amendments will go before the Council in November and they might not be qualified to take over at this crucial time. Extending Doug McKee’s term sends a message to the current P&Z that they are not capable of fulfilling the duties entrusted to them. Bill Adler is more than capable of taking the helm, as is Terre Bergeman, Clark Reddin or Ray Paolino. Everyone appointed starts as a novice even those elected. Heck even the State enforces term limits. The volunteer pool can get pretty slim when the Council sends the message that the new appointees are not ready.
As far as notice goes (question was brought up at the TC Meeting), believe emails are sent to all people on the notice list, a notice appears in the “Vista” and newspaper. The Town website describes the commissions, members with term expiration and a downloadable volunteer application.
I know they're appointed which is another reason the council should be able to extend a term if they so desire. After all, Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life! Does that send a message to all other judges in the U.S. that they couldn't possibly handle the job?
Regarding sending notice to those who have completed the CPI that a position is available on P&Z, I was surprised to hear (I think it was the Town Clerk who answered this question) that she "thinks" they are contacted by phone and then she "thinks" a follow-up letter is sent via regular mail. Isn't there a procedure that they follow? Shouldn't they KNOW what it is??!! Sara More also had trouble answering some questions. She was very hesitant in her answers and you could tell she was unsure of them.
Cowgirl...
There is a Town policy that was enacted several years ago that set term limits for people serving on Boards and Commissions. This policy was part of a number of recommendations forwarded by a citizens committee. IT WAS THE CITIZENS THAT WANTED THE TERM LIMITS.
If this Council wishes to change the Town policy, then change the policy and go forward. Don't violate the policy just because it's your buddy.
All of a sudden, when it fits your agenda, you want the Council to violate Town policy and ignore the citizens wishes. As you have said many times, "you can't have it both ways."
This was petty politics forwarded by a petty politician and the lemmings just following along in a row. Not good!!!
Why did the Mayor allow them to vote on it at all if it was a violation of Town policy?
Cowgirl...
Because it is a policy and not law.
And the other interesting thing is that two of those folks that voted in favor of the extension had said in a previous meeting that they did not want to make any changes.
I don't know why folks think the Mayor has all of this control. He is but one vote and only is responsible for conducting the meetings. He has limited control over the agenda and virtually no control over any other elected official.
OK, so if it's a policy and policies can be changed with a majority vote, then no one did anything wrong. Anyway, I'm done with this discussion because I think it is small potatoes. There are much bigger things in OV to concern ourselves with.
Post a Comment