Following Phoenix

Stanton Continues to Blast Gullett’s Lobbying Ties

followingphoenix — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 23:10:37 +0000

Last week, Wes Gullett received a lot of attention for being a lobbyist. First, he said he would keep stock in his company – something that would have been a ridiculous conflict of interest. In the end, he finally said that he would give up his lobbying firm if he were elected mayor.

It was probably his hope, and the hope of the Republic, that would be enough to end the issue. Not so fast.

Greg Stanton has continued to take Gullett to task for his lobbyist background, this time, calling into question Gullett failing to declare a conflict of interest on votes while he was on the Phoenix Planning Commission. Here is a great wrap up on this issue.

Lobbying firm or not, can the voters trust Gullett to do the right thing? He has painted himself as an outsider – but most call him the ultimate insider. If he has made questionable calls before – what would change when he is setting the agenda?

Phoenix mayoral candidates battle it out on live TV

followphx12 — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 23:58:04 +0000

Phoenix Symphony Hall was the center of the Phoenix political spectrum last night, as 4 of the 6 mayoral candidates took to the stage in a debate sponsored by the Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce and televised live by CBS 5. AZcentral.com has a full recap of the night right here:

Wes Gullett, Claude Mattox, Peggy Neely and Greg Stanton used the live, televised debate Monday to distinguish themselves from each other in the crowded six-way race for mayor.

While there wasn’t a clear winner in the debate, there was a clear difference in ideologies.

I was able to catch the action live and I was impressed with what I saw. It seems as though all of the candidates have an economic plan, although their constant desire to hold up their plan reminded me of something I would see in an infomercial. I have been fortunate enough to see many of the debates that have been held so far and it was interesting to see how the candidates changed what and how they said things once the TV lights came on.

Gullett stumbled through his opening speech and went on a strange diatribe about why he should keep the stock in his company that he earned as a lobbyist if he is elected as mayor. He played right into the hands of his opponents and this image of him defending his stock as a lobbyist will hurt him.

Stanton was constantly fidgeting while speaking and almost looked as though he were dancing at times. He also finally said that he would repeal the food tax, a flip-flop from his usual answer of saying it should be up to voters.

I thought that Claude Mattox came across as strong. While he took the unpopular stand of defending city employees and unions, he made a strong case for why he can be successful as mayor.

I also thought that Peggy Neely did very well. It certainly helped to have Governor Jan Brewer’s endorsement come right before the debate and it only strengthened her claim as the “jobs candidate” in the race. She gave measured, reasonable answers that showed she is ready to reform City Hall. It also helps to have Councilman Sal DiCiccio on your side when saying you can change the dynamics of city government.

What did you think of the debate? Did it change your mind on any candidates? Who won?

Gullett uses local non-profit name in mailer without permission

followphx12 — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 23:57:38 +0000

Phoenix mayoral candidate Wes Gullett recently sent out a mailer that described his jobs plan and appeared to have an endorsement from local small-business advocate and non-profit group Local First Arizona. There’s just one problem: Local First Arizona never gave Gullett an endorsement and never even gave Gullett’s campaign permission to use Local First Arizona’s name in the mailer. The rest of the story is here at azcentral.com:

Local First Arizona wants to make it clear the group isn’t endorsing anyone in the Phoenix mayoral election.

The non-profit organization that advocates on behalf of local businesses in Arizona is worried the public might get the wrong impression after mayoral candidate Wes Gullett sent tens of thousands of campaign mailers prominently featuring Local First Arizona founder and executive director Kimber Lanning’s photo.

That’s disappointing to hear. Even though Gullett has tried to label himself as an outsider, nobody in the race is more of an insider than Wes. Not only has he been a longtime lobbyist, including representation of union groups like SEIU, his wife was the former chief-of-staff for current Phoenix mayor Phil Gordon. Because of this, Gullett should know better than to use a company’s name on a mailer to insinuate an endorsement without permission from the company. This is the type of mistake you would expect from a political novice like Anna Brennan, not a career lobbyist like Gullett. Hopefully Wes has learned his lesson and now understands that people are watching this mayoral election very closely.

Stanton’s funds come into question in Phoenix mayoral race

followphx12 — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 19:10:25 +0000

I had previously written about how Phoenix mayoral candidate Greg Stanton had been a victim of embezzlement to the tune of more than $70,000 by his former treasurer, Mindy Shields. Shields is the daughter of influential Phoenix lobbyist Billy Shields. Mindy was charged with embezzlement and will be in court in August. So that should be the end of the story, right? Well, not exactly. Check out this story from azcentral.com:

More than $70,000 in mayoral candidate Greg Stanton’s election war chest is being called into question, with concerns over whether the money should be considered an illegal campaign contribution.

Shields is the daughter of Billy Shields, an influential Phoenix lobbyist and former president of the United Phoenix Fire Fighters Association, who loaned Mindy some of the money to repay the debt to Stanton’s political committee. Mindy’s mother, Maria, who is divorced from Billy, also loaned her daughter money.

But the legality of how the money was repaid has raised legal concerns. State law limits campaign contributions from an individual to $430, and some could argue that the repayment could be considered a single contribution exceeding donation caps, said Mike Liburdi, an attorney at Snell and Wilmer who worked for the Federal Election Commission in 2008.

Very interesting stuff! There’s no doubt in my mind that Stanton was a victim of a crime here, but at the same time, campaign law must be followed. If we bend the rules once, we have set a precedent that means we can bend the rules again. And after that, Phoenicians will see campaign law being bent every which way and that doesn’t give many of us confidence in our system. It would be a responsible move on Stanton’s part to forego spending the money to remove any doubts about it. While he was the victim of a crime, it was under his watch that the money was taken. In this case, unfortunately, it looks like he might have to live with the consequences of that.

What do you think? Should Greg Stanton give back the money?

Union video battle

followingphoenix — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 21:53:31 +0000

Peggy Neely launched this video against her opponents:

Wes Gullet responsed with this video:

Then came signs calling Gullett a “Union Lobbyist.” Things are starting to heat up!

Unions become focal point of Phoenix mayoral race

followphx12 — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 21:40:45 +0000

This past week, the Phoenix mayoral race has heated up over the issue of unions and their power within the city of Phoenix. Arizona Republic did a story on unions and their influence on the city of Phoenix and the city mayoral race. Check it out here:

“Candidates for mayor and council are sparring over the role labor unions play in Phoenix, with some injecting anti-union messages into the races to win votes or advance political agendas.

The rhetoric spotlights growing public concern over whether labor groups representing city employees wield too much influence or are trying to “take over” Phoenix City Hall.”

It definitely seems as though the citizens of Phoenix have some serious and warranted concerns over the power that unions have in City Hall right now. While we all appreciate the great work that the Phoenix Fire and Police Departments do for us, we have to make sure that their union bosses don’t completely take over our city’s budget. It is interesting to see how one campaign commercial has dictated the main topics of debate in this race.

I think that most Phoenicians would like to hear more from the candidates with union ties and let them explain how they can prevent unions from overtaking our city budget.

What do you think? Do unions have too much power in Phoenix? Is this something that should be discussed in the mayoral race? Which candidate do you think will do the best job of controlling unions?

Phoenix plans shift to zero-based budgeting

followphx12 — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 16:40:24 +0000

Check out this article from over the weekend on azcentral.com:

“Phoenix is developing a zero-based budgeting system for the 2012-13 fiscal year that would provide more details of what the city is spending money on and how the costs are justified.

Recent controversy over the city’s 7 percent water-rate increase and concerns over nearly $30 million in promotion pay raises and longevity bonuses planned for employees this coming fiscal year have fueled public demand for the switch. Residents have asked for easier access to understandable information about the city’s finances.”

This is an idea that has been around for awhile – is it being posed now because of the budget blowback? Lately, there has been a greater demand for transparency from the citizens of Phoenix and this is a move in the right direction. It would be interesting to see how the different mayoral candidates weigh in on this issue. Some have announced their support for a zero-based budget, as it would improve efficiency as well as provide more transparency so citizens can see where their dollars are being spent. Other candidates have pushed for more transparency, but would they support an idea such as a zero-based budget? For those who are confused as to what exactly a zero-based budget is, the Wikipedia description does a great job of explaining all the nuances.

What do you think? Is a zero-based budget the way to go for the City of Phoenix? Would you support a mayoral candidate more or less if they advocated for a zero-based budget?

Democrat Greg Stanton wants it both ways on partisanship

followingphoenix — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 00:35:42 +0000

Greg Stanton once again is complaining about being called a Democrat and once again, the New Times has taken it upon themselves to write about it. You may recall, Stanton made a stink when he wasn’t invited to a Republican event. Now, he is complaining because the Tea Party doesn’t like him. You see, he thinks that the race for Mayor should be a non-partisan event… that is, unless you are a Democrat.

Behind the scenes, the Democratic party is putting is full might into Stanton’s election pointing out over and over that he is the “Only Democrat” in the race. You only have to look at events like the LD10 Dem canvass for Stanton earlier this month, this one on Obama’s website and the constant updates from the Maricopa Democratic Party to get the picture.

So which way is it? Is this a non-partisan event or is it a partisan affair? Should no one besides Democrats be able to identify Stanton as such? What do his fellow Democrats think about his flip flop on SB1070?

Why does the New Times constantly write so breathlessly about his indignation over an email? I don’t see them writing the same thing about any of the emails and updates above which are clearly just as partisan.

Small percentage of Phoenix voters likely to elect Mayor, City Council

followphx12 — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 00:13:06 +0000

Check out this story from Sunday on azcentral.com.

“As Phoenix gears up for one of the most competitive mayoral elections in 30 years, it’s likely that less than 10 percent of the city’s 1.6 million residents and 20 percent of 600,000 registered voters will cast ballots in the Aug. 30 election, based on historical records.

That means unless more voters turn out, a small group of people – about 150,000 – will set Phoenix’s direction for the next four years as the city selects a new mayor for the first time in eight years and fills five of eight City Council seats.”

This is a very interesting and somewhat troubling article. This upcoming mayoral race will be a huge factor in deciding the future of our city at a pivotal time. With heated debate over the city budget, the food tax and other controversial items, it would be good if the majority of Phoenicians played a role in this election. However, it seems as though only 20% of our city’s 600,000 registered voters will cast a ballot. We need to encourage more people to take an active role in shaping our city’s future. I’m not saying you need to donate to a candidate or spend weekends walking neighborhoods vouching for a candidate.

I do think, however, that we should all take 15 minutes to read about the mayoral candidates and figure out which one is best for Phoenix and then actually head to the ballot box to make your voice heard.

What do you think? Is it troublesome that only 20% of registered voters are expected to vote? Should we take steps to encourage more people to vote? What would those steps be?

Former Stanton campaign manager indicted on embezzlement charges

followphx12 — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 22:12:00 +0000

From the Phoenix New Times:

“A Grand Jury indicted Mindy Shields, daughter of influential Phoenix lobbyist Billy Shields, for Class 2 felony theft.

The charges against Mindy Shields stem from the embezzlement of more than $77,000 from Friends of Greg Stanton, a political campaign belonging to the former councilman and Phoenix mayoral candidate. Shields, a close friend of Stanton’s, was his campaign treasurer since early 2000.”

This is an unfortunate story for Greg Stanton, especially as his mayoral race for the city of Phoenix is starting to heat up. While it appears as though Stanton himself did nothing illegal, his own campaign treasurer stands accused of the embezzelment of more than $75,000, which isn’t chump change. It might be fair to ask if Stanton can keep track of Phoenix’s taxpayers’ money if he can’t keep his eye on his own campaign treasurer. Wasn’t he assistant Attorney General at the time?

Does this affect how the voters will think of Stanton as a candidate for mayor? Is this a reflection on his leadership skills or just a bad apple he can’t be held responsible for? Is there a reason he didn’t file civil charges?