The East Valley Tribune paints MCCCD Governing Board Member Jerry D. Walker as an unprofessional, out-of-control, political ideologue who will go so far as to publicly ridicule students he's supposed to be working on behalf of with whom he doesn't agree. The story, titled "Views of MCCCD students, official clash" is a ringing indictment of a guy whose goal cannot be the expansion of education opportunities for students of the Maricopa County Community College District, but the political indoctrination based on fear and control.
Walker comes across as the type of conservative who finds bogey men and conspiracies at every turn. He referred to the Student Public Policy Forum trips as "a liberal conspiracy" with "socialist" objectives. Surprisingly, he actually convinced Board President Colleen Clark that it was some form of commie plot and she actually ran on eliminating the program in her 2006 election campaign (scary thought). Once she got there, however, Clark saw for herself that it wasn't a conspiracy at all, in fact she now supports the program.
“The understanding in public policy and advocacy that it provides students, the research and training and verbal presentation, I think all of that is positive.”
MCCCS Board President Colleen Clark
Walker is just the kind of guy we DON'T need. Worse yet, according to the story, this joker is a wannabe Baptist Minister. Now what type of Baptist minister spoke "with the male students in his assigned group, telling mildly raunchy jokes?" What type of minister brings a student to tears by "verbally attacking" her and chasing her down the hall, forcing her to retreat to the restroom to get away from him? Doesn't sound like there's a whole lot of Holy Spirit running through his veins now does it?
Let's hope the MCCCD board seriously punishes Walker for his actions and let's hope someone with a little more compassion and desire to improve education steps up and runs against this crazy S.O.B. in 2010. He deserves to lose.
Nope, I'm not making it up! It's official. So official in fact, it was reported in the newspaper. In the March 14, 2009 editorial page of the East Valley Tribune, the papers reports that according to a new George Mason University study, "Arizonans can be proud that they live in one of the 'freest' state (sic) in the Union, as measured by keeping government out of our lives and" (here's the money quote) "taking as little of our tax money as possible."
So I guess this means we won't be hearing any more of that baloney about how overtaxed we are. I wonder what the Goldwater Institute and the local chapter of "Americans for Prosperity" are going to do now that their pet peeve has been disproved?
The report is titled "Freedom in the 50 States: An Index of Personal and Economic Freedom" and it's a free PDF download.
Ever since the last ADP election and subsequent resignation of Paul Eckerstom as the new chair, I've tried to look for signs of intellectual life at the ADP. I've tried to see if anyone there really "gets it" that things are broken and simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic will not solve all of the organization's problems. I've tried to find any sign that the targeting of districts, ownership of state level races by the ADP and the manhandling (person-handling?) of candidates by ADP staff is a train wreck. I've looked high and low for clues that people recognize the Napolitano years of top-down, authoritarian control of the ADP was a bad thing that got us nowhere politically. I've tried to see if those who developed and mismanaged the state's disastrous 2008 legislative campaigns would see fit to find other lines of work on their own or have it be suggested strongly that they do (at least one got the message). And I've searched for reassurances that Don Bivens really has listened to the base and will take their concerns to heart.
I've talked to a lot of people in the party, from activists to PCs to state committee members. Because of Desert Politics, I've spoken to other members of the fourth estate including other radio hosts and newspaper reporters (radio and TV people don't talk to one another). What I hear is that people really aren't crazy about Bivens being chairman again. What I hear is people will vote for him --only-- because of his connections to money or because there is no other candidate. Out of the 30 or so people I've spoken to, whether they're on the state committee, an average Democrat, or in the media, only a handful have complete confidence that Bivens has learned enough of a lesson to implement the changes needed to win in 2010. Maybe more are out there, but they're sure not making themselves known. Nearly everyone I've spoken to has some level of doubt. I wish that wasn't the case.
Some are out there saying Bivens is the only one who can raise the money we need. I would argue that's not enough if the organizational and strategic changes won't happen. The reasons people give to the party (time or money) is because it's headed in the right direction, NOT just because the party needs something. Money should be given enthusiastically, not begrudgingly. If you need an example, look at the Obama campaign.
Even a group of young Democrats organized under the banner "Building A Stronger ADP," came out and said what they thought needed to be done, which sounded an awful lot alike what some of us were saying right after the election fiasco. The bottom line is people are NOT expressing confidence in Bivens, current leadership or management at this point. Otherwise, why would we still be having this discussion?
I was at a meeting earlier where a county chair and member of the legislature spoke. Both were upbeat, but both said some good things and they said a couple of things that concern me. The first was the apparent decision by someone or some group somewhere that County parties are not going to be involved in state legislative races and that races would continue to be targeted. That stunned me because I thought we had figured out that doesn't work. The second was the idea that our "democratic" message is getting out and that the people are wising up to Republican failures. I don't know about you, but I read a lot and listen a lot and I hear next to nothing about the Democratic views on this stuff. You hear a couple of sound bites or one sentence retorts, but isn't enough. The ADP is typically stone cold silent on the events of the day. Look at the ADP web site. There hasn't been a press release on anything going on down at the capitol in over a week. These things should come out daily, if not hourly. Even reporters ask what the Dems are doing. They want to know where our spine is. How is it that they don't hear this message that those in the party are telling us is being heard? Is it possible we're only hearing ourselves speak? This is a problem.
Then there's the whole hiring a headhunter for the E.D. episode that seems to point out again those in charge are the "Gang that couldn't shoot straight." It's still confusing. But at the end of the day, the Executive Board should have at a minimum been informed and had a say in the hiring of the firm. That they didn't shows the party is still one of exclusion, not inclusion and that isn't the change we need.
But all of this feeds into my sense that a not damn thing has changed or any lesson learned. It's as if Eckerstrom's election never occurred and the status quo has simply decided to ignore that event and keep keeping on with the old way of doing things.
There are people talking about boycotting the meeting so there is no quorum. That scares people at the ADP because they believe they cannot raise money without a permanent chair. I believe postponing the election of a chair in this way is unwise and we have to move on. But like I said, for the life of me, I haven't heard much that indicates to me that lessons were --really-- learned and needed changes --will-- occur. That doesn't give me confidence and it doesn't give others confidence in leadership or the party, which is the opposite of what we need right now.
As Democrats go back to the drawing board in choosing the party leader on March 7 there are a lot of people wondering whether the message sent by the state committee last time was really heard. As I talk to people, some believe it has been, but when I look a little deeper, I'm not so sure. Here's why.
A lot of people remain unhappy about the 2008 election results. People expected to hear a contrite ADP leadership and expected some senior staff changes by the time of the state reorganization meeting along with some reasonable assessment of what went wrong. They didn't hear any of those. They heard a leadership that pointed the finger in other directions, statements of effectively "staying the course" and explanations that sounded more like C.Y.A. than anything else. As a result, they showed their displeasure by electing Paul Eckerstrom chairman.
Criticism of Paul's election was immediate and intense. Rumors spread he didn't have a job. Some said the chair can only come from Maricopa County since so much work has to be done at the office and the commute is problematic from Tucson. Some suggested that many in the state committee were new and these people voted for Paul because of his speech. Some vocally criticized his perceived lack of fundraising abilities. Some criticized his decision to run in the first place. The result was that instead of falling in line behind a newly and properly elected chairman and moving forward, the party turned on itself and created a level of discord I haven't seen in my years of involvement with the party.
The rumors don't deserve comment, so I won't bother. But the other issues I feel distract us from the real problems in the party and do little to move us forward and prepare for 2010. It is wrong to believe a chairperson can only come from Maricopa County. If corporate CEOs can telecommute from thousands of miles away, there is no excuse why our state chairperson can't telecommute from wherever they are. The ADP owns a car; let staff get in it a couple times a month and go to where the chair is. I think most people would agree it would actually help them to get out of Maricopa County every once in a while. Staff works for the chairperson, not the other way around.
As for the new committee members not knowing what they were doing, I think that is a misread of what happened. I think people clearly knew who Don was and had the same expectations as anyone else on the committee that day. They wanted accountability, explanations or change. They didn't get the former two so they voted for change. It's that simple.
I think it's a mistake to base a decision for chair solely on the actual or perceived ability to raise money. There are plenty of people in the state who could work with whomever the chairperson is and raise money. I've argued in the past that regardless of who gets elected, those who have the ability to raise money for the party have an obligation to do so. I don't care who it is. In my view that includes every elected Democrat in the state. That means Janet Napolitano, Harry Mitchell, Gabby Giffords, Ed Pastor, Raul Grijalva, Ann Kirpatrick, Terry Goddard, all Democratic members of the state legislature and local officials, former state and county leaders, the works. You're Democrats and the party helped you get where you are and some of you helped the party get to where it is today. I'm sure many of these people will help, but for those on the fence or refusing, the party needs your help. Whatever it is that's behind it, ego, feelings, I don't care, put them aside. Step up and lend a hand.
The chairperson decision also needs to be based on the ability to run an organization and move it forward. We need a chairperson who can take a dysfunctional organization and turn it into one that works. We need a chairperson who simply isn't going to rearrange the deck chairs and announce change has occurred. It was announced last week that Devon Rankin will be acting E.D. for the party. I hope that's only temporary and an active search for a permanent E.D. starts soon because Devon is a great fundraiser. That's her forte. Why anyone would want to take her out of that role and put her in a management position at a time of distress or discord simply doesn't make sense to me. We need her raising money, not deciding campaign strategies.
I hope they're not doing this, but I would also strongly argue that putting fundraising in the lap of an Executive Director is a setup for failure. Believe me, I know. It's unfair to the E.D. and it is simply an excuse to take the responsibility off those who should have it. The E.D. is a --management-- position, not a finance position. Keep Devon where she is and find someone outside who knows how to hire, fire, create a salable message, organize people and candidates and work the media. No offense to anyone, but I don't see that person in current staff and I don't see that person in the state.
There's a management training video called "The Abiliene Paradox" that describes a paradox in which a group of people collectively decide on a course of action that is counter to the best interests of the group because of a failure of communication between its members about their. It involves a common breakdown of group communication in which each member mistakenly believes that their own preferences are counter to the group's and, therefore, does not raise objections. This is what I fear we're seeing happen here. People know they want change, but aren't willing to stand up and say what they really think for fear of some recrimination or being labeled as "not a team player." What I hear on the street isn't what I'm hearing out of the party and that simply cannot be a good thing. Watch the trailer below if you don't get what I mean.
Of course, there's the complimentary concept of Group Think...
I have no idea who will run and if the position is contested who will win. I know what I think needs to be done and I think a lot of others generally seem to agree. Rearranging the deck chairs isn't the change we need or the change we can believe in. In his landmark study "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,' author Thomas Kuhn said shifts in paradigms always come from outside the existing one. I believe this last election shows conclusively that our party is in need of a shift, and that only looking in new directions, listening to different voices and encouraging people to share their real thoughts and not just "going along to get along." That doesn't strengthen the party.
This past week the Phoenix City Council chose a replacement for Greg Stanton, who left the council to go work for Terry Goddard. I argued here that they ought to chose a Democrat instead of a right-win Republican (Sal Diccicio) who supports racial profiling, Joe Arpaio and Andy Thomas and has strange ideas on economic development and is bed with the very developers he criticized while on the council previously. The council had the choice of Dana Kennedy or Sal Rivera and a couple other Democrats. Why give the Republican a leg up in the election?
So who did the Council select? Sal Diccicio.
Apparently, the vote for Sal Rivera was tied 4-4, but for some reason Mayor Gordon switched his support to DiCiccio and he was elected 5-3. So those voting for the right-wing of the Republican Party were Mayor Phil Gordon and City Council members Thelda Williams, Peggy Neely, Maria Baier, and Claude Mattox. Those who voted against DiCiccio were Tom Simplot, Michael Nowakowski and Michael Johnson.
This is a great step backwards and I just don't see how this improves the city's ability to deal with a down economy when you chose someone who simply doesn't understand economic development or the impact that reductions of services impacts citizens. Phoenix needed practical leadership and it got an ideologue.
I was informed on Feb. 13 that the time slot for Desert Politics would be moved to 4PM on Saturdays. The reason is the advertising company is paying more for the time slot than I was, so they got 1PM and Desert Politics is now at 4PM.
One thing that just drives me crazy is when partisan Democrats support Republicans when perfectly good Democrats are running for office or an appointed position. This is particularly mind-numbing when (a) Democrats hold the majority of the votes and (b) the person they're "supporting" is a hard-right Republican.
A case in point is the selection of a replacement for Phoenix City Councilman Greg Stanton. The City Council and the Mayor choose the replacement from a list of residents of the district who submitted their names for consideration. The Council then has about five days to make their choice. There are seven people who will make this selection, wanna guess how many are Democrats? More than enough.
So what's the problem? According to reports I'm hearing, they're all supporting former council Sal Diciccio: a self proclaimed, hard right wing Republican who supports Andy Thomas and Joe Arpaio and had the reputation of being "Mr. No." After he left the Council to run for Congress, those real estate developers whom DiCiccio roundly criticized while on the Council came out of the woodwork to give him him campaign contributions. He also became a developer himself.
He wrote an op-ed in 2007 --supporting-- Arpaio's wasteful lawsuits. In 1996, he supported the tobacco lobby's move to pass a state law making it tougher for cities to pass strict antismoking measures saying "kids will smoke anyway." In June of 2007 he wrote an op-ed in the Arizona Republic that implies that Hispanics are from a "corrupt culture."
And this is the guy the Democrats on the city council are endorsing?
WTF are they thinking?
So let me get this straight: people who want others to believe they're "moderate" and "thoughtful" are going to pick someone like Sal Diciccio for council and give a Republican with extreme views on law enforcement, sides with tobacco lobbyists and equates Hispanics with a "corrupt culture" an appointment to the council? They're willing to give THIS guy a leg up on the election in September when there are other qualified people up for the position? People like Dana Kennedy and Joanna Peters?
Posts
