---
We have been asked to provide our perspective on Mark Napier, candidate for Oro Valley Town Council. Mark is unknown in local Oro Valley activities. So here's our take on Mark:
Mark is member of the town's Planning and Zoning Commission. "I am currently a Commissioner on the Planning and Zoning Commission where I have developed competency in reviewing land use issues for the Town." (Source: Mark Napier Web Site). Here's an example of his competency: Last fall Mark Napier voted to approve what would have been an illegal, "text clarification" of the Rancho Vistoso PAD. We are referring to the request for apartments on pacel 7-I. It was not a text amendment. It was a major change in the PAD. He should have talked with Town Attorney Rosen and he would have understood on what he was voting.
I spoke with Mark. I asked him the same question I ask all candidates to whom I speak: "Why do you want to be an Oro Valley Town Council Member?" His response was that he had been a Policeman for many years and felt that he was qualified. This is not an answer to my question. By now, I'm sure, he's come up with a better reason. I figure though, if a person does not know, right of the bat, why they want to be a council member then they are not qualified to be one.
Mark's career experience is as a Policeman, outside of Oro Valley. He is endorsed by both police unions. We have previously posted on the value of these endorsements: "Meaningless, Morally Wrong and Embarrassing." His position on the police department, as stated on his web site, sounds fair. We think that it will be hard for him to be neutral in scrutinizing the police department's budget if elected. He owes the police unions for their endorsement. The Police Department reports to the Oro Valley Town Council. The budget is 48% of the town's budget. So, being independent from the Police Department actually matters when it comes to evaluating their performance and giving them money.
"I am not in support of turning our library over to the County at this time." (Mark Napier web site). So, Mark already made up his mind on an issue that is going to be vetted and evaluated by the town. In fact, there is a hearing on this on February 21 at 6 PM in Town Council chambers. By blocking out the option from his mind, which is a simple switch to a branch status, relieving Oro Valley of a $1 million annual penalty, Mark has closed his mind on the matter. We suspect that Mark either does not know the facts or that he is pandering for votes.
"I am simply the only candidate with a wealth of public administration experience and a broad base of education". (Mark Napier web site). This is a lie. Bill Garner has public experience. Mike Zinkin has public experience. Steve "The Trashman" Solomon has public experience. Brendan Burns has public experience (Brendan attended the University of Notre Dame and majored in Government and International Relations. He also completed a concentration in the Hesburgh Program in Public Service which focuses on careers in public service. Brendan graduated from Notre Dame, Cum Laude, in 2001 with an honors designation in his major. Brendan graduated law school early, Magna Cum Laude, in December 2003. Brendan continues to serve as a Major in the Army Reserves and is the Senior Defense Counsel for Arizona. Brendan joined Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP in March 2009 where he is a civil defense attorney.).
Do the people of Oro Valley want someone on council, Mark Napier in this instance, who is so careless with his words? Do the people of Oro Valley want someone on council who so easily trashes people?
The call is yours, of course.
We say, "No On Napier".
---
20 comments:
He pretty much said the same things during today's forum. He also pointed out that there's a difference between nefarious and regular special interests. He is opposed to a management study of the OVPD, as is Solomon. Both are endorsed by the OV Fraternal Order of Police and then OV Police Officers Association. The theme there seemed to be we are the safest city, etc, so why examine something that's not broken? Well, maybe we are spending $1.50 for every dollar we should be spending, and still assure a safe city? It's obvious where his allegiances are (which isn't nefarious by itself) but if a representative of the people is unduly influenced by those allegiances, then it's a problem. We have an expensive police department, and it's goal is to add even more (for growth?.)
OK.... Now that I know that the following is acceptable according to the new web master:
"cox--you are really a disgrace."
and
"Crawl back in your hole and stop making a fool of yourself with your asinine comments."
I feel very comfortable making the following comments.
The initial post is full of asinine comments and lies.
"Mark is unknown in local Oro Valley activities."
Mr. Napier has been on the P&Z for how many years and yet you state he is "unknown in local Oro valley ativities"? I am not sure which category to place the above...asinine or lie.
"Here's an example of his competency: Last fall Mark Napier voted to approve what would have been an illegal, "text clarification" of the Rancho Vistoso PAD. We are referring to the request for apartments on pacel 7-I. It was not a text amendment. It was a major change in the PAD. He should have talked with Town Attorney Rosen and he would have understood on what he was voting."
That I think falls into asinine. I checked with a Town Attorney and he said it was simply a text amendment.
"I am not in support of turning our library over to the County at this time." (Mark Napier web site)."
Did he say he was never going to? No. Was their room for him to learn other facts and come to another conclusion? Yes. Therefore your assessment:
"By blocking out the option from his mind, which is a simple switch to a branch status, relieving Oro Valley of a $1 million annual penalty, Mark has closed his mind on the matter.", is asinine....and a total rework of what he actually said.
" I am simply the only candidate with a wealth of public administration experience and a broad base of education". (Mark Napier web site). This is a lie."
Excuse me. Did you just call Mark Napier a liar? Gee, that's a new low for the blog. But then, you all make the rules. I just follow them.
I am unaware of ANY experience Zinkin has in public administration. Being a member of a commission is not public administration. Being a cast out from a home owners board is not "public administration". Being an air traffic controller in the Air Force is not "public administration". Maybe it is his umpiring ......no that doesn't qualify either.
Burns doesn't reflect any public administration experience in his public material.
So the complete post is just inaccurate, useless campaign rhetoric.....and lies.
We can only hope our readers take the time to read this, and all comments from cox.
His opposition to Bill Garner, Mike Zinkin & Brendan Burns should get all undecided voters to know which three candidates to support.
Listen to cox, and then vote for Bill, Mike & Brendan.
This is so funny on so many fronts that I am nearly hysterical with laughter.
art segal attempting to lecture any person on civility is akin to listening to a presentation on the dangers of explosives presented by Ted Kaczynski.
You can make this stuff up.
As previously mentioned, I attended yesterday's forum, and as a result I will not vote for Napier. While he seems to be well spoken, and he has the appropriate credentials and experience to hold public office, he's in bed with our police department. Ironically, our council is responsible for PD oversight - kind of like the fox guarding the hen house. He opposes a management study of the PD because nothing is wrong. I suggest watching my utility tax double while nearly half of the entire OV budget is consumed by our PD, there might be something wrong after all. I would like to see an independent third party examine the OVPD - if the report comes back with no suggestions, then I can be reassured that OV is spending my tax dollars appropriately.
Mr. Napier's comments about special intersets fell flat. Anytime a politician accepts endorsements and/or money from any organization, it's understood that the associated wheels will be greased. Ducking from that reality was somewhat disingenuous.
While police are considered part of public administration, it is peculiar that military who protect a larger jurisdiction are defined separately as "military". Sounds like semantics to me and a good topic for intellectual jousting.
Zinkin US Navy and ATC, supervisory position
Burns, Major,
Legal Counsel in Service
While only 4 of 100 were awarded this internship, Brendan, one of the four chosen, worked in British Pariliament.
OVOT, Does that sound governmental enough for you?
OVOT,
concerning:
"Here's an example of his competency: Last fall Mark Napier voted to approve what would have been an illegal, "text clarification" of the Rancho Vistoso PAD. We are referring to the request for apartments on pacel 7-I. It was not a text amendment. It was a major change in the PAD. He should have talked with Town Attorney Rosen and he would have understood on what he was voting."
That I think falls into asinine. I checked with a Town Attorney and he said it was simply a text amendment.
Just wondering what Town attorney you spoke with? According to several current TC members, that is NOT what Attorney Rosen advised them.
Also, in 2004, the WLB Group (representing Vistoso partners LLC)proposed an amendment to the 1996 Gen Plan for a 14 acre portion of
7-I. (R)04-60,OV11-04-07
The request was to change from Community Commercial to Medium High Density Residential. I assume this was passed by Zoning since it made it to TC to review 6/16/04 where it was denied.
If Zoning recognized it as more than a "text amendment" in 2004, why not in 2011 when the change would have been fr CC to HDR? What changed?
To OVOT (a.k.a. don cox)
Quoting Don Cox:
“OK.... Now that I know that the following is acceptable according to the new web master:
"cox--you are really a disgrace."
and
"Crawl back in your hole and stop making a fool of yourself with your asinine comments."
Don’s logic: Don feels he can justify his bad comments by pointing to other bad comments.
We need to thank Don Cox for his incisive and penetrating analysis on the comments web master had to say about Council Candidate Napier.
For example:
The webmaster quoted from Mark Napier’s web site. "I am not in support of turning our library over to the County at this time." "
Don Cox’s retort: “Did he say he was never going to? No. Was their room for him to learn other facts and come to another conclusion? Yes”.
Don: Mark Napier has made a definite public statement on an issue as a candidate for council before there has been any public discussion on the Library Status which will occur on February 21, 2012. If Mark would become a council member, council members are charged with refraining from expressing a viewpoint on issues prior to their being vigorously discussed in a public meeting. Don’t you think that Mark making a viewpoint prior to any public discussion is somewhat premature?
Don’s continuing comment:
Therefore your (webnaster) assessment:
"By blocking out the option from his mind, which is a simple switch to a branch status, relieving Oro Valley of a $1 million annual penalty, Mark has closed his mind on the matter", is asinine....and a total rework of what he actually said.
Don, Mark Napier actually said on his web site: “I am not in support of turning our library over to the County at this time”. I believe that the webmaster has a right to make an assessment (opinion).
Don, just as you have the right to make a comment (opinion): "is asinine....and a total rework of what he actually said.
Really? Such a civil and concise analysis!
Don’s continuing comment capability and quality shows clarity and depth while hurling an insult.
John Musolf
Faveaunts.... I cnnot answer your question, "What changed. I can only relay what was discussed between myself and a Town Attorney. I, as a matter of respect, do not disclose the names of individuals with whom I speak. But if you just do a little research, you ought to be able to figure it out.
Moose...While I always appreciate your point of view, in my opinion there is no insult when you are simply disagreeing and making an observation.
Ooops,OVOT!
A very important detail for you is that Zinkin's employer is the FAA, ie Federal Aviation Administration where he worked supervising air traffic controlers. So,indeed, he worked in public administration.
Objective Thinker (Don Cox)
Evidently, "asinine" has become part of your standard vocabulary so you don't believe the word is not uncivil or an insult.
If you look up the word "insult" in the dictionary it states "to use offensively or damagingly".
In this case you have the right to make an observation or comment but not to disparage someone as "asinine for their comment..
John Musolf
A Message To Jay D and to OVOT
I am not posting some of your comments because the comments refer to events that are not relevant to the 2012 elections.
I did not run blog in 2010. What happened at that time or what a particular person who is no longer on council did is irrelevant.
If you wish to have your comments posted please stay on topic.
Otherwise, I will not post your comments.
Richard
Richard, I am frustrated by the lack of consistency and transparency on this blog. On the one hand, the blog has instituted Comment Moderation, with Terms of Use stating the need for civility and respect. On the other hand, you allow posters, like Fear the Turtle to make comments to OVOT like, "...I've never met you, and really don't want to meet you, but based on your postings you are one piece of work...you are just this blog's court jester." Isn't this a personal attack, something the Terms of Use does not allow? Very confusing!
In addition, like you have done with others, you certainly could have used part of my post! You wrote a "Shame on you Lou" thread, criticizing him for an email. Seems only fair that a poster should be able to refer to past council people, some who are your friends, who have done the same.
I'm just saying...
Mr. Napier,
At the forum you stated, "The devil is in the details." I couldn't agree more.
In addition to placing your sign in the median, a violation of the law you swore to uphold, another blind spot leaped out. You slammed a steely gate down noisily on the PD study. Adamantly you declined to support it.
What does that mean? PD is infallible? PD is exempt from cooperating as part of the Town team?While over 100 officers are employed as law enforcement officers, that they need one man to "protect" them? Or that they do not have the skills, competence, ability to take care of their own department? "The devil is in the details."
PD represent almost 50% of the budget. Yet they had difficulty prioritizing their cuts. Two that do not effect public safety are contributions to their health benefits and chipping in for that $18K coffee bill. Yet you think PD should be protected from these changes. Hmmm? Is that fiscally responsible? "The devil is in the details."
You have four children. When that first beautiful little human being came into your life, you and your wife loved your child immensely. Later that child began pulling himself up on the coffee table, wobbling as he tried to walk. Both of you were overjoyed and apprehensive. One of you reached out to grab him and soon the other said, "Let's let him try it on his own." Stronger, he walked. All three of you were overjoyed.
Later, when that same child hit adulthood, you weaned him from your wallet. Why? Because he needed to learn budgeting for rent, food, car payment in order to support a family. You wisely encouraged his fiscal independence.
Intuitively you knew that "overprotection is rejection" and allowed him to make mistakes and learn from them. He'd figure it out.
OVPD touts our low crime rate. They are proud of this accomplishment. Why would they shrink and run from a study if their performance is excellent? Why would you, their supporter, not want to prove how and why this is so? What are you hiding? "The devil is in the details" Mr. Napier!
It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out; will it mirror the events of the last election, where MZ got edged out? Will it go robustly for MZ this time? Or will SH lead his group into the promised land by a convincing margin? If the latter, I fear for the future of OV, because that result would indicate to me that the citizenry has become lemmings, with the trending patterns not too optimistic....
Moose.....I use the term "asinine" for two reasons. the first is that it is an approved word on the blog. The second, and far more important, is that I use it to mock art's use of the word.
Sorry OVOT, but when Napier states on his website..."I am simply the only candidate with a wealth of public administration experience and a broad base of education"...that is A LIE! So, yes, we are calling him a liar.
I found it interesting that in your defense of Napier's lie, you mentioned only Zinkin and Burns as not having public administration experience but made no mention of the fact that BILL GARNER HAS PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION EXPERIENCE!
Therefore, Napier is NOT the only one who has it. He lied. And you also lied by omission.
DV.....Zinkin was an air traffic controller and may have supervised air traffic controllers.
The FAA is a segment of the federal government. It does not create public policy. It has a very specific, defined area of focus.
Please consider the following from Wikiopedia:
"Public administration houses the implementation of government policy and an academic discipline that studies this implementation and that prepares civil servants for this work.[1] As a "field of inquiry with a diverse scope" its "fundamental goal... is to advance management and policies so that government can function."[2] Some of the various definitions which have been offered for the term are: "the management of public programs";[3] the "translation of politics into the reality that citizens see every day";[4] and "the study of government decision making, the analysis of the policies themselves, the various necessary to produce alternative policies."[5]"
Simply because a person works for a government entity does not immediately translate into having knowledge of or experience in "public administration".
And for the other person with "faux" knowledge, none of the candidates you mentioned have a wealth of public administration experience. There is NOTHING in the public background of Zinkin or Burns to support such experience. And Garner does not have a demonstrated "wealth of public administration experience". As usual you have no solid basis for your comment other than your imagination.
And now Thinker says that in order for a person to claim that they have public administration experience, they must have..."knowledge of or experience in public administration".
Ummm...Bill Garner has "KNOWLEDGE OF" since he has a Master’s degree in Regulatory Affairs and post-master’s work in public safety.
He has "EXPERIENCE IN" since he has been a town council member since 2008.
Then Thinker offers these definitions of public administration experience from Wikipedia:
(1) the management of public programs.
Bill Garner served his community as an emergency management director for four years.
(2) the study of government decision making, the analysis of the policies themselves.
I refer you again to Bill Garner's Master's degree in Regulatory Affairs.
Mr. Napier:
You credit OVPD for low crime rate in OV. Perhaps, the citizens, deserve that credit.
Comparing the FBI's list of 10 factors contributing to crime with 2010 Census' finding for OV are:
1. Density/urbanization
Census 41,011 for over 24 sq. miles, no urban density
2. Youth population
Census lists 23.1% under 18 and over 65 26.1%. Youth numbers small to average.
3. Stability-commuting
Census lists 1 yr in same house 83,7%, OV home ownership 78.7%, mean travel time to work minutes 48.0%, very stable
4. Income, poverty level, jobs
Census median income per cap $38643
Census median inc.per house $69958
Census % in poverty 5.6%
Middle class to affluent
5. Education
Census lists HS grad 95.8%
Census lists college/grad 48.0
6. Strength of PD
By PD's evalutation strong
7. Investigative emphasis
By PD's evaluation strong
8. Climate
No census data, popular opinion
Fabulous!!!
9. Modes of transportation
No Census data
10.Family conditions, ie divorce
No Census data
Eliminating 2 without data and climate leaves 7 possible criteria to measure.
Residents live in a suburban area, without an abundance of youth, are very stable, middle class to affluent with few in poverty, and are highly educated.
Citizen do not qualify as crime ridden in 5 areas. PD merit 2.
You do the math. Citizens contribute significantly to the low crime rate in OV!
OVOT,
VC's clearly interpreted your research...there's little for me to say except review #2.
Post a Comment