RTA Election

ROADBUILDERS RULE


There appear to be several occurrences recently that together made a parody of our election laws.

The RTA election set forth by the roadbuilders lost in the polls but won the election. Now suspicions have arisen that the computer was programmed to flip votes, giving us an upside down tally.

Added to these coincidences is the fact that the pro RTA people did fund 22 pro RTA statements in the election booklet mailed to voters. This gave the impression that 22 people paid $100 each or the privilege of expressing their opinion about the RTA proposals
The actuality was that the pro RTA committee had paid $2200 to buy the ad spots in the election literature without noting that fact, kind of like sending letters through proxies but nobody is supposed to know about it but a few insiders. I call the opinions expressed under the aegis of the pro-RTA committee ads because that is what they were. I think it is required by law to sign an election booklet opinion when you pay for it. The pro RTA committee lawyer was ‘unaware’ of this law and received a slap on the wrist for falsifying election literature. Voters were deceived.

The parody comes in when the poor schmuck voter is sent misleading election literature. Corruption in elections is corruption in governments.

Hey man, you make a fool of us when you lie, cheat and maybe steal our tax dollars for bogus projects. First the untrustworthy election materials, now this alleged flipping off the electorate with slick rhetoric and maybe a few bucks on the side for somebody plus a very large roadbuilder mealticket, all on the taxpayer’s dollars.

What some people won’t do to get their hands on money…undermine the election process for short term goals is a guaranteed long term failure. Trust in our elections is more important than roadbuilders, trust me.

Pima County Overspending

Blogger Special

The Tuesday Republican club was hopping today...Ray Carroll and Ms. Day spoke on the county budget, which is out of control spending the tax money gathered in from the last hike in assessed evaluation. Our property taxes are ridiculous now and next year expect a 19% increase! Evidently ole Huck wants more sales tax from the populace, which has to have a 100% vote from supes to pass.

We need to back our Pima County supervisors in reining in this out of control spending. The demos control the board and voted in $14 mil pork for their own districts and $1mil for the Republican supes. This is bs, don't you think?

Evidently Sahaurita has overbuilt and their turd farm is inadequate. Get this...they want to pipe it to Tucson for us taxpayers to pay for the treatment instead of taxing themselves and paying for an improved facility. This is abuse of our system. I think this is a disclosure issue for the developers of Sahaurita. Let the people sue them.

Randy Pullen, director of the state Republican party, has blabbed bigtime and many are calling for party unity instead of Mr. Pullen leading the charge to disrupt the party. Questions raised at the meeting today included why didn't the Republicans settle on an immigration bill when they had a majority? Why did they wait until they no longer had majority? Senator Kyl was doing his job when he compromised with Senator Kennedy. He had no choice. Walking out and taking his ball and going home was not an option.

I think the party has had enough of not speaking with those who do not totally agree with their own august opinions, a surefire way to never learn anything. We need to talk and compromise and plan for the next election, rather than tearing each other down.

Enuf said.

Tucson Parody Town Hall

A stacked deck may let them report what they think they want but excluding a range of participants will not change the physical limitations of Tucson, like a looming water shortage. Not wanting to mention water because the recognition of the lack thereof will cause an economic downturn is putting your head in the sand. The lack of water WILL CAUSE an economic downturn and intelligent people would be planning long term how to maintain this city for the people already here. Check the level of Lake Mead, study the Colorado River agreement and get ready for a shortage. Of course, a few "important" people might make a few bucks before more development is declared non-adaptive behavior..., so deal your marked cards and gamble with our future but above all, don't lose any $. There's still a little more to be milked.

Social irresponsibility will reap unpleasant long term consequences. Since the sample population attending the Town Hall is skewed, the results will be limited to that population and cannot be extrapolated to the whole population.

OPEN MEETING LAW VIOLATIONS

It appears that the Tucson City Council has violated the Open Meeting Law during the study session of April 4, 2007.

My reasons for thinking this are:

The memorandum ‘Presentation Regarding a Proposed Public/Private Partnership for a Downtown Hotel, Convention Center and Arena (Ward 1) dated April 4, 2007 refers to an Attachment: Memorandum from Council member Ibarra dated March 28th, 2007, which names a different proposal than the proposal accepted and assigned as described on the ‘Administrative Action Report and Summary April 4, 2007’, which passes for the absence of minutes, as described by a city employee. Evidently the Norville proposal was the designated agenda item as detailed in the Ibarra Memo, but the proposal voted upon was evidently presented at the meeting and voted upon without prior notification of the populace that this proposal would be even mentioned, much less voted upon.

Now I really don’t have a dog in this fight, but I do respect and admire Arizona’s Open Meeting Law and would be suitably distraught if Boss Tweed appeared among us.

It looks like passing items not on the agenda during a study session is a violation and not having minutes is a violation. If the argument that the agenda item is broad in scope and that the other proposal fits in, then I must remind you that the title refers to ‘a proposed’ not ‘proposals’, which would tend to eliminate more than one presentation. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I always thought a study session was not the time for voting. What happened to the old idea that a proposal is presented at one meeting and voted upon at another?

I remain uneasy about the idea that this ‘item was properly agendized and voted on during the Study Session Meeting. (e mail RE: city council minutes 4/13/07). What is agendizing? The published ‘administrative action report and summary’ does not resemble the agenda, memorandum, and attachment presented to the public.

Perhaps if the populace had known that the ‘new arena a described by the CS&L study’ would be a meeting topic, more people would have attended. Evidence of secrecy and violations of the Open Meeting Law should be investigated.

Exercise your voting rights and vote against secrecy in government.