The Police MOU: A Four-Year Agreement—A Bumpy Road Caused By Town Staff Errors

Flawed pension impact calculations derailed the MOU negotiations 
Oro Valley’s new police pay agreement is now in place, as we reported last week. With the deal ratified, pay and pension provisions are set through 2029—unless police pay rapidly escalates in Marana. But getting to an agreement was not easy, largely due to flawed estimates of the pension impact of the various proposals. In fact, it took a declaration of impasse by the Oro Valley Police Officers Association to get a meaningful agreement.

How did it get so complicated?
To understand what happened, we requested and reviewed more than ninety emails and schedules from the Town. Our public records request asked for any reports, memos, modeling worksheets, presentations, or correspondence prepared by Stifel & Co related to the pension liability impact of the police union MOU proposals. We specifically asked for documents showing how pension costs were modeled, the assumptions used, and any communications between Town staff and Stifel about adjustments made to the analysis between April 14 and May 7, 2025.

Early April: An outside advisor runs the numbers
In early April, both the union and Town proposals were far apart on pay and pension impacts. At some point, Town staff had engaged Stifel & Co to analyze how each proposal would affect the Town’s public safety pension obligation. An April Stifel analysis showed the union proposal would have a far greater impact on pension costs than management’s offer. This early analysis indicated the union proposal would increase the Town’s pension obligation by $8.3 million (9.48% of total liability), while the Town’s proposal ranged from $2.2 million (2.55%) to $8.0 million (9.15%), depending on assumptions.

$5 million total impact limit given to town staff
This result came as a shock to Town staff. It was well over the “limit” they had been given: “We have received direction to attempt to keep the total cost of the new agreement, including PSPRS impact, to around $5M which our last proposal did not do. Additionally, our Town Council likes options when it comes to these things.” [Gephart to Daghestani email of April 18, 2025 (Email 47.pdf)]. At one point in the discussions, a Town representative told the union that their proposal could “bankrupt the town”—a comment that reflected how high the early pension impact figures were and set the stage for even greater tension as the impasse loomed.

The April frenzy: A search for affordable options
Between April 14 and April 30, the situation became especially intense. Town staff scrambled to understand the financial impacts of the various options. For example, between April 17 and April 23, Finance Director David Gephart worked with Human Resources Director Andrew Votava to develop and submit new management pay proposals to Stifel for analysis. As a result, staff sent at least two new management pay scenarios for Stifel to cost out, while continuing to refine a third. This period was marked by rapid back-and-forth as staff tried to provide council with multiple, affordable options ahead of the scheduled executive session at the end of April.

The union declares impasse—and uncovers an error
By April 28, negotiations had become so unproductive that the union declared an impasse. One reason was that the union determined Town staff had miscalculated the pension impact by including eight Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP) officers. DROP officers are police employees who have entered a program that lets them “retire in place”—collecting pension while still working, but not accruing new pension benefits. Including these officers in the original pension calculations overstated the Town’s true obligation because their salaries no longer affect pension costs.

Two April mistakes in calculating pension impact
This episode surrounding the pension impact was a mess that could have been easily avoided. Town staff made two mistakes that were entirely preventable, had everyone on the negotiating team understood how the different offers would affect pension costs. First, on April 23, Gephart wrote to Stifel acknowledging that his earlier implementation of “Mgmt 3” was incorrect and provided revised weighted averages to bring the PSPRS impact down. Second, the inclusion of eight DROP officers in the analysis was not discovered by the Town, but was caught by the union, which correctly pointed out that DROP officers should not have been counted. While these mistakes were unfolding, negotiations continued using faulty data. It’s no wonder the union declared an impasse on April 28. The Town was not operating in good faith.

What happened in May?
We don’t have documentation of what occurred during May. However, we do know that the final Memorandum of Understanding was agreed upon and adopted by the Town Council on June 6. Based on the timeline, it appears that the council’s involvement, along with the use of accurate and mutually agreed-upon data, enabled both sides to reach a settlement. 

The terms of the final agreement are very similar to those under discussion in April, suggesting that resolution would have been possible had accurate pension impact numbers been provided.
- - -

Council, Union Reach Agreement on Police Compensation--Agreement Details

Four-year agreement finalized
Last week, we reported that the Oro Valley Town Council unanimously approved a new four-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Oro Valley Police Officers Association. The agreement takes effect July 1, 2025, and runs through June 30, 2029. It includes updated compensation terms and provisions for wages, benefits, and working conditions for sworn officers in the department. This is what we have learned (and not learned) from the draft MOU.

Agreement includes across-the-board and step increases
Under the new MOU, officers will continue to receive annual step increases. For the ranks of Police Officer and Detective, the step increase has been raised from 3.5% to 3.75%. Sergeants will receive a 2.25% step increase, with Year One minimum and maximum salaries set at $95,056 and $111,076.64, respectively. Both are about a 7.5% increase over current levels. In addition, all MOU-covered employees will receive a 2% across-the-board raise in Years Two, Three, and Four.

Additional pay adjustments
The agreement also increases shift differential pay to $1.75 per hour and raises on-call pay to $1.85 per hour. Changes were made to DROP (planned retiree) contributions, limiting 457 Retirement Plan contributions to Tier 1 employees hired before July 1, 2025. Other elements, such as leave, uniforms, and off-duty employment policies, remain largely unchanged.

Not one of the original options
LOVE previously reported that the Town Council had been reviewing three different pay plan options during negotiations. The new agreement does not exactly match any of those three. It appears to be a modified version of what was internally labeled the April 14 withdrawn plan ("WD"), with several adjustments to base pay and terms. Because the town did not release financial modeling to the public, we cannot say exactly what this will cost the town annually, but we did estimate that the "WD" plan would add  $630,000 in cost for fiscal 2025.

A shift in strategy
The agreement includes language discouraging mid-term negotiation re-openers unless there is a demonstrated compensation gap with Marana or mutual agreement due to unforeseen conditions. This indicates a longer-term labor strategy focused on stability and mutual trust. The Council’s unanimous vote signals strong support for the new plan, but without detailed cost projections, it’s unclear how this will affect the Town’s long-term budget.

- - -

Council Faces Three MOU Police Pay Proposals, Each with Trade-Offs

Its up to theTown Council to set police compensation
Last week, the Oro Valley Town Council became directly involved in decisions regarding a new Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Oro Valley Police Officers Association (OVPOA). The MOA defines pay, benefits, and working conditions for sworn police personnel. The current agreement, negotiated in 2021, expires on June 30, 2025.

This is the first time the Council has cut at the new MOA. As we previously reported, last week, after extensive discussion, the Council requested additional financial analysis and asked staff to present side-by-side comparisons of the union’s proposal and the Town’s most recent offers. Council members are expected to review this information and may decide on the terms of a new agreement at their next meeting.

Three proposals under discussion
Three proposals are currently under consideration. One is the union’s most recent offer, presented on April 21. Another is the Town’s “bridge plan,” also presented on April 21, which staff described as a short-term compromise to keep negotiations moving after earlier terms were withdrawn. The third is a proposal from April 14 that was later withdrawn by the Town due to concerns about its long-term financial impact, particularly its effect on pension liabilities. The union supported that offer and indicated they were close to accepting it before it was pulled.

Hard to see?
Click to enlarge

Proposals share some key elements
All three proposals reflect agreement that police compensation must increase to remain competitive. Each includes a raise of approximately 13 percent for entry-level officers in the first year, along with annual step increases, cost-of-living adjustments, and a structured pay scale designed to attract and retain qualified personnel.

And differ in important ways
The panel at right highlights five key differences among the three proposals, ranging from the size of salary increases to long-term pension costs. In essence, the union proposal offers the most generous across-the-board increases, the withdrawn April 14 offer falls in the middle, and the bridge plan is the most modest. Each reflects a different balance between competitiveness, affordability, and long-term fiscal impact.

Union questions pension analysis... incorrectly included DROP officers in pension impact calculation

During the Council meeting, union representative Sgt. Durbin expressed concerns about the pension analysis provided by Stifel. Durbin noted that the union had not received the report in advance and questioned its accuracy, suggesting it may have included individuals outside the bargaining unit. Durbin also stated that the modeling appeared to mischaracterize the union’s April 21 proposal, potentially overstating its long-term cost. These concerns are central to the union’s position that the Town’s decision to withdraw the April 14 offer was based on incomplete or flawed financial assumptions. 

More specifically, Durbin stated that six DROP officers (Deferred Retirement Option Plan) were included in the Stifel pension liability calculations, even though their pension benefit levels are already locked in and should not factor into projected pension increases. She expressed concern that while the Town removed some DROP participants from the modeling, six remained included, potentially inflating the projected pension impact of the union’s proposal. (Updated 5-14-25)

Why the Council is now involved
Negotiations began in September 2024 and progressed steadily until mid-April. According to the union, they were close to accepting the April 14 offer when the Town withdrew it based on updated pension analysis from its consultant, Stifel. The Town then introduced the bridge plan, which is less costly primarily because it offers smaller raises across most pay steps, especially for senior officers—reducing both wage costs and pension obligations. The union viewed the withdrawal as a breach of trust and declared an impasse on April 28. That action activated Section 3-5-6 of the Town Code, requiring that unresolved issues be submitted to the Town Council for final determination.

Budget impact in FY 2026 and 2027
Any Council decision will require a modification to the Town Manager’s Recommended Budget for FY 2026, which was developed without including major changes to police compensation. Depending on which plan is adopted, the added costs in the first year are approximately $1.48 million for the union proposal, $630,000 for the withdrawn offer, and $408,000 for the bridge plan. This is a LOVE estimate and it includes the cost of increased non pension fringe benefits. These costs can be covered by reallocating funds within the proposed budget or by increasing the overall budget limit, potentially through the use of reserves.  

Concerns about how pension costs are being represented by town staff

Some observers have questioned how Town staff are presenting the pension impact of the police union proposal, particularly a staff graphic projecting an $8–10 million drawdown in the Capital Fund by FY 2029–30. Critics note that the $7.82 million pension liability under the union proposal is not a one-time payment but a long-term cost spread over decades, reflected in gradually increasing annual contributions to the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System (PSPRS). These contributions are operating expenses, not capital outlays, and accurate projections would require actuarial input from PSPRS. In FY 2026, the actual added pension payment under the union plan would be about $423,000, with lower amounts under the other proposals.

Council’s focus: fiscal responsibility
No member of the Council has proposed reducing police staffing or underfunding public safety. While there is discussion about the pace and structure of compensation increases, their commitment to supporting the Oro Valley Police Department remains strong. The Council’s focus is not on whether to raise police pay—all proposals include significant increases—but on how to structure those raises in a way that rewards officers, manages pension obligations, and ensures long-term town fiscal sustainability.

- - -

Clarification:

Town staff presented four scenarios for comparison during the May 7 meeting: the union proposal, the withdrawn April 14 offer, the Town’s bridge plan, and a status quo scenario with no new MOU. Our article focused on the three proposals that were actually negotiated and discussed. The status quo was not formally proposed by either side and is considered a fallback rather than an active option. (Updated: May 17, 2025)

2014 Election: Majority-4's Oro Valley's Special Interests

Five special interest groups participated in the 2010 election. These interest groups endorsed and provided funding for the Majority-4 in their 2010 election. We expect that they will participate once again.  For your reference, here is who they are:

SAHBA

SAHBA is the Southern Arizona Home Builders Association. They represent 350 building industry member companies with nearly 5,000 employees.  Their mission is to advocate for public policies and develop activities and services that further the home construction industry."  David Godlweski, a contributor in 2010 to the campaigns of the Majority-4, is SAHBA's president. You may know SAHBA from the annual spring home show that they follow.

SAHBA has considerable "skin in the game" in relation to Oro Valley politics.  They seek candidates who will look favorably on the requests of their members for zoning changes or for general plan amendments.

SAHBA is in the process of endorsing candidates. Their candidate questionnaire asks questions such as:

• What do you feel is the role of home building in Oro Valley’s local economy?
• What will you do to encourage new home construction and economic development if elected to Council?
• Looking ahead, how will you measure or define success in terms of your efforts to encourage new home construction and economic development?
• What does affordable housing mean to you? 
• If elected, what will you do to create and protect affordable housing for working class families in Oro Valley?

We suspect that SAHBA will endorse candidates by early July. We suspect that they will endorse Majority-4.

Firefighers

There were a number of firefighter groups that endorsed and supported candidates in 2010.  These include: The IFFA, the Avondale Firefighters, Firefighters of AZ, United Pima Firefighters and Yuma Firefighers.  (Our Previous Report)  They supported some, if not all, of the Majority-4.  We expect them to support them again.

We have no idea why firefighters have a stake in Oro Valley elections. They have a separate board and are separate from town control.  Could it be that they are providing a reciprocal financial donation for the Oro Valley Police Officers Association?

OVPOA

The Oro Valley Police Officers Association  ("OVPOA") endorse the Majority-4 in 2010. Their stake in the 2014 election is obvious.

The OVPOA follows a specific game-plan as published in "Police Union Power, Politics, and Confrontation in the 21st Century: New Challenges, New Issues." (previous posting).  According that text, OVPOA should only endorse incumbents who score high in their previous council term.  Is there any doubt that the Majority-4 will score high?

Greater Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce

The Northern Pima County Chamber of Commerce endorsed the Majority-4 in 2010.  The Chamber changed its name in 2012.  The Chamber is prohibited by agreement with the town in lieu of receiving $30,000 per year, to participate in political activities. So, we do not expect them to endorse any candidate.

Local Advertising Circular 

The local advertising circular endorsed the Majority-4 in 2010. We believe that they will endorse them again in 2014.  The local advertising circular's stake in the game is two-fold. First, it is their need to please their advertisers, who are businesses.  Second, it is to get inside information and cooperation from each member of the Majority-4.
--
Our Conclusion

Here's what we do expect this time around.  Mayoral candidate Straney and council member candidate Bristow will seek only the support of one special interest group, you the citizens. Otherwise, they will neither seek nor will they accept endorsement of special interest groups.

Majority-4's "proven leadership" will continue to serve the special interests.

Oro Valley Police MOU Rich With Fringe Benefits

This evening, the Oro Valley Town Council will consider approving a 2 year memorandum of understanding ("MOU") with the police department.  We wrote about this agreement, in general, on Monday.  The earnings increase based on that MOU are 6% increase in base earnings. That is valued at $500,000.  Then, there are step increased automatically granted in the subsequent years.  In addition, certain police employees are eligible to receive added compensation if, for example, they are school resource officers.

There are also non earnings benefits mandated by the agreement.  The following is a list of these. It is attachment B of the police memorandum of understanding which the council will consider this evening.

1. "Compressed and/or flexible work week, where practical, for many assignments
2. Assigned take home vehicles at the discretion of the Police Chief.
3. Paid Holidays [currently 13 (thirteen) per year-12 (twelve) @ double time if worked/ 1 (one) birthday off], and any additional holidays that may be approved by the Town Council.
4. Leave benefits as outlined in Town policy.
5. One hundred percent of the members' medical insurance premium paid by the Town based on wellness program participation. A $10 per pay period premium would be charged to any employee who did not participate in the Town's biometric program, once the program is initiated.
6. No less than eighty percent (80%) of the additional monthly premium cost for members' dependent medical insurance premium paid by Town.
7. One hundred percent of the members' dental insurance premium paid by the Town.
8. No less than eighty percent (80%) of the additional monthly premium cost for members' dependent dental insurance premium paid by the Town.
9. Retired members have the option of continuing medical insurance coverage at a rate made avai lab le to them through participation of the Town in rate negotiations. This includes members retired due to early, regular or disability who are not eligible for Medicare.
10. One hundred percent of Life Insurance premium paid by the Town for a policy that pays out one year of the member' salary. 
11. Supplemental Life Insurance available for member where member may purchase additional Life Insurance up to five times the member's annual sa lary at a rate made available to them through participation of the Town in rate negotiations. 
12. Supplemental Life Insurance available for spouse and children at a rate made available to them through participation of the Town in rate negotiations. 
13. One hundred percent of the member's long-term disability insurance premium is paid by Town for non-A.S.R.S. participant members. 
14. One hundred percent of the members' mid-term (bridge) disability insurance premium paid by the Town. 
15. One hundred percent of the members' workers compensation insurance premium is paid by the Town.
16. Extensive employee assistance program (EAP) is paid by the Town. 
17. Tuition Reimbursement for members at a rate of 100% reimbursement from the Town for tuition for job-related college credit courses, up to a maximum of $2,000 per member per fiscal year.
18. Town sponsored "section 125 plan" (Pre-Tax contributions for medical/dental/supplemental life insurance premiums).
19. Town sponsored "Section 125 Plan" (Pre-Tax contribution for Dependent Care Reimbursement Accounts up to five thousand dollars per year). 
20. Town sponsored 457 Deferred Compensation Plans (Pre-Tax contributions). 
21. Town sponsored supplemental insurance products. 
22. Supplemental Vision Care Benefits. 
23. Supplemental Commuter insurance paid by Town through AMRRP. 
24. Town administered payroll deduction for OVPOA/FOP/100 Club."

Our opinion is that it financially worthwhile to be a cop in Oro Valley.  A one-time 6% salary bump and then automatic annual pay increases.   There are phenominal fringe benefits.  Few companies pay for the entire health insurance premium. Few offer dental premiums.  Few offer take home cars at the boss' discretion.  Few pay for long-term disability insurance.  Add to this the direct payment for uniform allowances. Add to this the opportunity to earn overtime.  All of this locked in for 2 years, handcuffing a future council from doing anything about this until 2017.

In fact, this agreement is so one-sided for the cops that we wonder what they wanted that they didn't get.

In our opinion: "Its good to be a cop in Oro Valley."  It is not wonder that police in other communities  are jealous! 

What do you think?

---

Oro Valley Town Council Considers Police Contract Wednesday

The Oro Valley Police Officer's Association ("OVPOA"), also known as "Town's Public Safety Employee Group" has negotiated  "... a 2-year MOU providing for full implementation of the Town's market study with step ownership on July 1, 2014, and step increases in both FY 2014/2015 and FY 2015/2016. "
(Source: Town Staff Corbin Report)


The Salary Scales Are Based On A Possibly Flawed Market Study

The "town's market study" is a study that compares Oro Valley employee salaries and wages in communities that are almost 3 times the size of Oro Valley. They are in Maricopa County.  That study concluded that Oro Valley employees are not paid comparable to these communities.

"The only new costs associated with this MOU are the proposed changes to the Police Pay Structure which were recommended by the Waters Consulting Group after they conducted the market study. The one-time cost of implementing the structure is approximately $500,000 and will be a part of the recommended 2014-2015 budget."

The $500,000 is about 6% of police direct pay personnel costs.

(Oro Valley's police budget for 2014 is $14.1 million. $13.8 million is from the general fund.  This is 48.1% of general fund expenditures.  Total town budget personnel costs are $25.1 million.  $19.7 million are supported by the general fund.  There are 134.1 full time equivalent employees in the police budget.  These employees receive approximately 74% of total budgeted personnel costs of $11.6 million.  So, pay to police employees is about $8.6 million. The added $500,000 one time adjustment proposed by the MOU is a 6% bump in pay.)
---
"Insiders" Negotiated The MOU

Four town employees, one of whom is a police commander, negotiated the agreement with four other town employees, who represent the union.

The MOU, which must be approved by council, defines the salaries, terms and conditions of the employment of the police.

Winners and Losers

For the police, reporting to council and then influencing the majority of council through endorsements are the two key ingredients for OVPOA negotiating success.

The OVPOA follows the playbook detailed in the text: "Police Union Power, Politics, and Confrontation in the 21st Century: New Challenges, New Issues."

The book instructs to support friendly candidates and to score incumbents based on how they voted in relation to union related matters.   A "B" or better warrants a continued endorsement.

According to the text, police union candidate support should go beyond endorsements.  The book speaks at length of providing media support to candidates, using PAC money, and providing manpower to a candidate's effort: "The reason firefighters have so much influence... is that they own the yard sign franchise...candidates are getting yard signs printed and, in many cases,  installed by fire fighters."

The book notes that the police department should expect the following:  "When you endorse a candidate... make sure to extract a price. This candidate needs you much more than you need him or her. Get this candidate's binding promise to support the pay raise, next collective bargaining agreement or whatever else is your top issue before you make the endorsement. Then remember to collect on the promise after the election."  (This from page 114 of the text)

Lack Of Independent Negotiation Is The Problem

So, you may ask: "Why is this a problem?" Unions, after all, have using these same tactics for years.  And, they have been successful in doing so.  In addition, it is their right to do so.

We agree.  Lack of independent negotiation is not a problem for the union, of course.  It is also not a problem for a town employee as long as they stand down from challenging the union.  The town's employees involved in the negotiations have good reason to avoid angering the OVPOA.  All they need to do is look to what happened to Town Manager David Andrews in 2010. (Read: Evil Trickster of Oro Valley).

It is a problem for the residents of Oro Valley.

It is a problem because, to this point, there has been group beholden to the people of Oro Valley who are negotiating on their behalf.

Our Analysis: A Sweet Deal For The Cops

That is the role of the town council.  In most instances that would be sufficient to represent the people. Not at this time however.

What will council do Wednesday night?  Here is our surmise:

The Majority-4 on council were endorsed by the OVPOA. They fawn publicly over anything police related.  They gush each time they mention the name of Oro Valley Police Chief Sharp.  They have yet to demonstrate that they will provide a critical eye to police operations and spending.

Only Council Member's Burns, Garner and Zinkin are independent of the police.  They were not endorsed by the police union.  In fact, OVPOA has actively complained against Council Member Zinkin, and has refused to talk with Council Member Burns.

The OVPOA has driven Oro Valley politics for years. It will continue to do so until voters elect council members who do not have the OVPOA "seal of approval."

Wednesday: "An Agreement Rich In Fringe Benefits"
---

Oro Valley Now Negotiating 2-Year Agreement With Police (Employees)

During the creation of the town of Oro Valley, the town privately contracted police services through Rural-Metro. There, fire-fighting, police services, alarm response, and paramedic operations were provided to 1,200 residents by the company Rural/Metro. The contract was agreed to and ran from 1975 through 1977, with a flat yearly fee of $35,000 to be paid to Rural/Metro.

The company (Rural/Metro) agreed to a number of conditions giving the town control over their operation. They agreed to establish a police headquarters in Oro Valley, to keep records according to state guidelines, and to supervise and assume all liability for their employees. The town authorities retained ultimate authority, able to override Rural/Metro if they felt it necessary.

In 1978, Rural/Metro agreed to transfer their policing duties to official town police, with the company reducing its role to the supply of vehicles and equipment.

Notably, when the town authorities took over full provision again, many costs increased. One change was to replace the civilian employees of Rural/Metro with uniformed officers on higher salaries.

For many years, the Fraternal Order Police (FOP) represented the Oro Valley officers in negotiations with the town.   Many Oro Valley officers belonged to both the FOP and the Oro Valley Police Officers Association (OVPOA).

In 2004, the town recognized the OVPOA as the excluding bargaining organization for the police force.  Every year since, the town and the OVPOA negotiated a memorandum of understanding (MOU). This memorandum defines the terms and conditions of the employment of the police.

This changed on May 2, 2012 when the Town Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Resolution 12-23 between Public Safety Employees (Police) and the Town of Oro Valley pursuant to Chapter 4, Section 4-1-8 of the Town Code for two years.

The Memo of Understanding affected two years of the Town Budget (FY2012/2013 and FY 2013/2014). At that time, the OVPOA negotiated an agreement that was, essentially, applied to all town employees. For example:

“As part of fulfilling the Town Council's goal of investing in Town employees, management recommends the reinstatement of the step plan along with a modest merit increase ranging from 2% to 3.5% for non-step plan employees in the second year of the MOU, FY 2013/14.  A similar merit increase would also be recommended for the rest of Town staff not represented by this Memorandum of Understanding during FY 13/14 as well”.   

The Town and the OVPOA are currently in negotiations for a new MOU. It is not known what time period it will cover or what demands will be made. It will certainly affect future budgets.

We will watch what the proposed final agreement will contain and how it will affect the taxpayers of Oro Valley.
---

The Politics Of The Recall Run To The 2014 Elections

Yesterday, in our posting "Hiremath Orchestrating Zinkin Recall", we spoke of Mayor Hiremath's lead role in the Council Member Zinkin recall attempt. We identified the reason he is going after Zinkin.

However, we did not state that it is imperative that the majority and their special interest friends, the Oro Valley Police Officers Association ("OVPOA") and the development community, open Zinkin's seat for election.

The recall is not about Zinkin. Its never been about Zinkin.  The recall is about opening a council seat for election.   Zinkin's recall is a "means to that end." The end goal is to reduce the minority from 3 to 2 on the 7-member council, opening 4 seats, plus a Mayor, for election in 2014.

Its about continuing absolute control of Oro Valley.

On January 1, Thelma Grimes, editor of the local advertising circular, published her opinion on Oro Valley council matters.  The piece speaks mostly of the recall effort and of some of the assertions against Zinkin.  Grimes made one significant observation:

"On the minority side, councilmembers Brendan Burns, Mike Zinkin and Bill Garner are often a vote short of winning on issues from the budget to spending and management of the Oro Valley Police Department." 

She is a bit wrong.  The minority is always a vote short. This is because the majority-4 never break rank.

What Grimes fails to state is that it is precisely because the minority is one vote short of winning on all issues that majority have to get rid of Zinkin!  Zinkin is the most outspoken of the three minority members.

The majority are up for election in November.  If they lose just one seat to the minority view, then they minority will be the majority.  Priorities could change.  For example:

• There could be a study of police operations and the department itself could be shifted from reporting to council to reporting to the town manager.   
• There could be more stringent  enforcement of Oro Valley's sign codes. 
• There could be interpretation to the general plan as a policy statement that is to be followed, not one that is to be "worked-around".   
• There could be a revitalization of Oro Valley's investment in is social infrastructure (Have you seen Steampump Ranch lately?  Its an embarrassment.)  
• There would not be a "jump on the bandwagon" approach to economic development, an approach which puts "current market demand" above all other decision criteria. 

These are different priorities than those displayed during 4-years of council control of the majority-4. Their priority is economic development and protecting the police department.

If the majority and their special interests can get rid of Zinkin, however, then they will have a better chance of keeping the status quo. What is the status quo? As one reader shared with us:

"As tough as 2013 has been in different ways for each of us, I think it's been a tough year for Oro Valley.  Many would look at the mild surplus in the budget, and be pleased; I look at the deficit in social programs, and am disappointed.  Many would highlight the aquatics center, and be pleased.  I look at the decline in quality of service at our Library ( the transfer of which contributed in part to the dollars for the swimming pool ) and feel let down... Many would look at Securaplane and be satisfied with growth; I look at the very ordinary architecture of a very highly visible structure, and wonder what happened to our "scenic corridors". Many would note "signature" events, such as the El Tour, and be happy with the influx of tourist money.  I look at the disgraceful condition of Steam Pump Ranch and the piecemeal approach to the Naranja Town Site, and wonder "what could have been".

2014 is a year in which the owners of Oro Valley, you, will have the opportunity change the town's priories, if you wish to do so.   The loss of a valuable member of our council and a seat that today, truly does belong to the people, will make that change much more difficult to achieve.
---

The Zinkin Recall: What Is This Really About?

Last week we informed you of the filing of a recall effort on Council Member Mike Zinkin.  Friday night, "KGUN9 On Your Side" broadcast on this.. You can watch it here.

If your read our posting and listen to the KGUN9 piece you might wonder: What is this really about?  Who is behind it? Why are they doing it?

In the interest of disclosure, we asked for and received a copy of the request for records by the wife of Mayor Hiremath's campaign treasurer.  Her name is Jane Allan-Burge. She is a resident of Oro Valley,   The request was dated August 30. 2013.  It requested" "Any and all documents of complaints for any and all town employees including the mayor and council members in reference to behaviors since June 1, 2012. This is the date Council Members Burns, Garner and Zinkin were sworn in.

Who Is Complaining?

We have the response that Burge received.  There is not a lot in this file.  There's maybe 6 complaints regarding Zinkin. Who are they from?

• Kevin Mattocks, President of the Oro Valley Fraternal Order of Police
• Mayor Satish Hiremant (multiple complaints)
• Police Chief Daniel G. Sharp
• Council Member Mary Snider
• Town Manager Greg Caton

There were no complaints from citizens of Oro Valley.

There were no complaints from Oro Valley  non police employees, except for Caton.

What Are They Complaining About?

The simple answer to this question is: Not much.

Here is one example of the alleged "behavior unbecoming a public official" complaints from the materials that Jane Burge obtained:

In a January 20, 2013 letter to Town Attorney Tobin Sidles, Mayor Hiremath alleges that Mike Zinkin is a racist:. The Mayor offers no proof. It is simply a statement of what he thinks:

" ...I believe that council Zinkin and has an issue with race, including me.    As of this date, I am the only East Indian Mayor in the country and I feel that I'm being racially discriminated against with the letters being submitted to the AG's office in addition to the above examples.  I would like this duly noted."   The letters to which the mayor refers our letter sent to the Attorney General (AG) alleging violations of the open meeting law by Mayor Hiremath."    

The mayor wrote this letter a week after he had confronted Zinkin regarding the violation that Zinkin had filed with the AG.

The other complaints relate to something that Council Member Zinkin is alleged to have said. They include the use of an alleged inappropriate word, the telling of an alleged inappropriate joke of Groucho Marx, and an alleged complement given an employee of Oro Valley.

We wrote previously in "OVPOA Goes To War On Mike Zinkin" about the threat that the OVPOA thinks that Zinkin is to public safety.  Zinkin asked for overtime information.
---
What We Think

We told the organizers of the 2011 attempted recall of council members Snider and Hornat that we would not support their effort.  Yes.  We agreed that both Snider and Hornat had reneged on a campaign pledge not to increase our taxes.  Yes.  We know that they did increase our taxes.  Still, we felt that there was no compelling reason, no extraordinary circumstance to require a recall.  After all, let's face it, politicians do break campaign promises.

We believe that the Zinkin recall effort has even less merit.  Zinkin has not lied to us. He had done the job he said he was going to do.  If Zinkin is guilty of anything it is that he told a well-known joke of a well know comedian that someone found offensive; and that in an attempt to be friendly, he may say something that is not "exactly politically correct" by today's standards.  At best, these are not reasons for recall.  At best, perhaps these are reasons Zinkin might consider sensitivity training. 

So, what is the recall really all about? It is about politics.  It is coming from Mayor Hiremath and the OVPOA.

Is it wrong for them to try to rob the citizens of Oro Valley of their vote by initiating a recall? 

What do you think?
---

Hiiremath Supporters Attempting To Recall Zinkin

The Arizona Daily Star reported yesterday, with a follow-up today, of the taking out of recall papers on Council Member Zinkin.  The papers were taken out by "The Oro Valley Citizens for Ethical Government." One of the organizers of this effort is Jane Burge, wife of Mayor Hiremath's still active political campaign treasurer and contributor.

The chairman of the committee is Kevin Jones.  Jones wrote a letter to the Explorer that was published on June 8, 2011.  In that letter, Jones "railed" at an effort to recall Council Members Hornat and Snider.  Jones wrote:

"The attempted recall of Oro Valley council members Joe Hornat and Mary Snider is a needless distraction to our community and reeks of pure hypocrisy. This effort is being driven by a small number of bitter, discontented residents who resent the outcome of our last election and are now trying to sabotage our duly elected officials from doing the job we elected them to do."

Seems that Jones is doing exactly what he says was wrong to do.  Duplicitious?  You think?

It is no coincidence that this recall effort is launched after the Oro Valley Police Officers Association (OVPOA) and its leader, Marshall Morris  Last week, OVPOA declared war on Zinkin.  OVPOA went "ballistic" because Zinkin had the audacity to ask for overtime pay information by levels (not by individual) of the police department.  This very act threatened public safety, according to the letter they filed with Oro Valley's human resource director.  The hand of OVPOA most certainly is also behind this.

So, the gauntlet has been thrown.

According to Mayor Hiremath who, according to the Daily Star, denies any complicity in the recall effort: "Zinkin is being recalled mainly because of documented instances of inappropriate comments to female town employees, as well as racially insensitive remarks."

He  is, of course, not being truthful about his involvement.   How would he know about why this effort is underway if he is not part of it?

In addition, the alleged insensitive remarks are not a reason to recall an elected official.  A recall should be justified in only the most egregious of circumstances.

The attempt to recall Zinkin is a critical cog in the ability of the Majority-4 ( Mayor Hiremath and Council Members Waters, Snider and Hornat) all of whom will be up for reelection next year, to maintain "iron-fist" control of the town. It is an attempt by OVPOA to maintain "iron-fist" control.  In their mind, Zinkin, who is truly the voice of the people, must be silenced.
---

OVPOA Goes to War On Council Member Zinkin

The Oro Valley Police Officers Association has declared war on Council Member Mike Zinkin. This is our conclusion based on a series of simple events in the past week.

The Facts

Earlier this month, Council Member Zinkin requested information regarding police overtime. He asked to receive a report regarding which program received overtime in each pay period. He did not ask for information by individual, just in total for each of the nine programs in the police budget.

Zikiin's request was made to Police Chief Sharp. Zinkin clarified what he wanted in an email to Town Manager Caton.  Click here to read both of these communications.

Somehow, the OVPOA was informed of the request. Marshall Morris, President of the OVPOA, wrote a 3 page memo dated September 16 to Ron Corbin, Oro Valley Human Resources Director. The memo attacked Zinkin's request.  Click here to read the OVPOA memo.

Our Analysis

The memo alleges the following:

• Zinkin asked for overtime slips of each employee.
  This is not the case. Zinkin did not ask for overtime slips by employee.  Zinkin specifically stated in his message to Chief Sharp that he did not want to see information by person.


• Zinkin asked for such information only for the police department and not for any other Oro Valley department.
  This is true.  The other departments do not report to the council. They report to the town manager; therefore, Zinkin did not request overtime information on those departments as they do not report to council. 


• Zinkin's request was targeted at commissioned officers.
  This is not true. It was asked in relation to 9 programs in the police budget, not by individual.


• Zinkin wants to monitor the overtime of commission personnel.
  As stated already, this is not what was requested.


• Zinkin is upset that the OVPOA found out about this request.
  If Zinkin is upset, he has a right to be so. He made the request to a department head, an individual who reports to council. The request was not made to OVPOA. In our opinion, someone deliberately passed the information to OVPOA,  a union that is not employed by the town of Oro Valley. Their being given this information is unethical on the part of the person who provided it to them.


• Zinkin has no confidence in Police Chief Sharp.
  Council Member Zinkin has never made such a statement.


• Zinkin has reason to accuse some officers of fraud and dishonesty when it comes to overtime.
  Zinkin has never made such an accusation.


• Zinkin is accusing all commissioned officers of collusion in committing overtime fraud.
  This assertion is absolutely without merit.  It is mere supposition, combined with imagination.  Zinkin has made no such accusation.


• Zinkin is attempting to reduce command staff in the police department.
  There is no evidence that Zinkin's request for overtime information could, in any way, relate to an attempt by Zinkin to reduce command staff.  In addition, Zinkin has never said that he is attempting to reduce command staff.


• "Through his actions, Council Member Mike Zinkin appears to have some unknown reason to undermine the efficient operations of the Town of Oro Valley Police Department, putting its employees and the residents of the Town of Oro Valley into unneeded danger."
  
How does a simple request regarding overtime put Oro valley residents in unneeded danger?

Questions Raised

Our reading of the OVPOA memo leads us to with some questions.

First, what is the intent of the OVPOA memo? Is it to intimidate Council Member Zinkin to prevent him from doing his elected job?  If so, then the OVPOA is trying to disuade Zinkin from doing what he was elected to do.  We hope not.  The job of the cops is to uphold the law; not to thwart it.

Second, is this memo is an example of the quality of the investigative prowess of the Oro Valley police?   We hope not.  The memo is factually incorrect. The memo is emotional. The memo presents illogical and presumptive conclusions.

Third, are there more people behind this sniping than the OVPOA?  We hope not.  OVPOA received the Zinkin request from someone in town hall.  Could this memo be a coordinated effort to impugn and discredit Council Member Zinkin?

Fourth, why is the police union coming down so hard on a simple request?   This OVPOA memo is way "over the top".  To paraphrase Shakespeare: OVPOA "...doth protest too much, methinks."

What do you think?

---