Arizona's Own Espresso Pundit

Fool Me Once...

I thought you might be interested in this article from last week's Republic. 

Phoenix-based Honeywell Aerospace will pay the largest air-quality settlement ever levied in Maricopa County, a $3 million-plus penalty for alleged violations at five of its Valley facilities.

The article is important because of the size of the fine, but there's an important little tidbit buried inside.  How did the county find the violations?

Many were self-reported by the company after an internal environmental audit.

That's right.  "self-reported by the company after an internal environmental audit."  That's likely to be the last "internal audit" that Honeywell conducts. 

If you were a CEO with an environmental conscience, you might want to know if your pollution-control measures were effective.   Companies that want to do the right thing will often go above and beyond their mandatory reporting requirements and conduct in-house audits to determine the effectiveness of their controls.  They learn a harsh lesson when the results of those internal audits are used against them.  Naturally they only have to learn that lesson once. 

General Motors used to have a program to track the effectiveness of its pollution control systems.  The program provided a powerful tool for GM to improve its pollution control technology on the front end. Then the EPA subpoenaed the data and fined GM for violations that would have otherwise gone undetected.  GM eliminated the program.

It would be a much more effective if truly voluntary auditing and reporting were privileged--the company could maintain the data but it would be immune from discovery.  (Obviously the self auditing and reporting that is required as a condition of the company receiving an air quality permit would not be privileged.)

In the mid 1990s, a bill to provide a privilege for voluntary audits was working its way through the legislature until the media and the environmental community dubbed the bill "The Polluter Protection Act." Legislators who supported the bill were mocked without mercy and the bill died a quick death. 

So now regulators can burn companies like Honeywell.  But only once.  After all, it's pretty clear that once these companies are burned by their own audits, they will stop conducting additional audits. 

That's a worse result for everyone.  Well almost everyone--I'm sure the controversy sold a few extra newspapers and looked good on the Siera Club's fundraising letters. 

Oh, THAT Juan Valdez

Democratic State Reps. Chad Campbell and Robert Meza have sent out a mailer to let the district know that their opponent has a criminal record.  While that's fair game, it seems to me that printing his mug shot is a little, you know, Willie Horton-esque.  Here's the entire mailer.

I suppose that Meza and Campbell will claim that they are just pointing out that a guy with a criminal record might not be the best State Representative, but the key to the ad is Mr. Valdez' APPEARANCE.

Then on the reverse Campbell and Meza emphasize that Mr. Valdez may be "John" on the ballot, but he usually goes by "Juan."  What's the point of that?  Russell Bowers goes by Rusty.  My full name is Gregory.  Is it really a problem that this guy wants to be called Juan at home and John on the ballot?

No, Campbell and Meza are sending the message that Valdez is too Mexican. 

Can you imagine if a Republican had run this ad?  Wow.

UPDATE:  Here's Rep. Campbell's response.

Hi Greg,

I wish you would have asked for the entire story about this mailer before posting. 

The ONLY reason we have sent out his photo and are bringing up the issue about his name, is because he has been trying to claim he was a victim of identity theft and IT WASN’T HIM THAT HAD THE RECORD.   So, obviously, we wanted to refute the mailing he sent out to voters trying to hide his criminal record.  That is the only reason we sent this piece out.  If Mr. Valdez had been honest about his past criminal record, this never would have been an issue and there would have been no need to send this piece out. 

If you would like to discuss further, please feel free to call me at 602...

Sincerely,
Chad Campbell

One more Thing

Greg,

In addition to refuting his criminal past, he has repeatedly said he is not Juan Valdez, that he is John Valdez.  The fact is that he is Juan Valdez.   That is why we brought up the name issue.  No other reason.  Again, he has been trying to hide his criminal record by claiming he is someone else.  As I said, I would love to discuss further with you if you’re so inclined.  602.... 

Thanks.

Chad Campbell

TIME is Running Out.

On July 17th, I broke the story that the Governor's TIME initiative may not have enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.

The first test is the initial vetting that occurs at the Secretary of State's Office.  Here's what I wrote on the 17th.

TIME needs 153,365 valid signatures and they turned in 258,342.  The Secretary of State goes through the petitions and discards ones that are obviously bad and then turns the rest in to the Counties for verification.  This initial vetting can eliminate thousands of signatures.

If TIME's filing rounds down to around 250,000 then they can tolerate at 38% failure rate.  Chances are they will still make it, but I'm sure that they are sweating.

Since I wrote that paragraph, the Secretary of State's office has conducted the initial vetting and my number was way too conservative.  My guess was that they would lose about 8,000 signatures in the initial cut.  The actual answer is that the Secretary of State threw out nearly 20,000 signatures that were facially invalid (eg. the circulator didn't sign the back of the petition, or it wasn't notarized.)

So now TIME has only turned in 238,874 signatures and they can tolerate a 35% failure rate.  That's going to be tight. 

It was the Tribune that broke the story of the behind the scenes machinations that got TIME in trouble.

Gov. Janet Napolitano eliminated key elements of a major transportation initiative this week, agreeing not to tax homebuilders in exchange for their support and $100,000 to kick-start the campaign.

I pointed out in the previous post that TIME got into a spitting match with the Homebuilder's Association and REJECTED 18,000 signatures that the Homebuilders collected on TIME's behalf.  Those signatures would have virtually guaranteed that TIME would have made ballot. 

But TIME's "secret deal" with the Homebuilders caused additional problem.  They got a late start. The Tribune article is dated May 10th and it took TIME another few weeks or so to get all the petitions into the field.

The quality of the signatures decreases as the collection period progresses.  If TIME turned in 238,874 signatures that were collected in March, April and May, then they would have a better shot.  But most of TIME's signatures were collected after June 1st. 

My guess is that TIME will end up in the "mandatory count" range.  That is, the random sample will indicate that the number of valid signatures is between 95% and 105% of the required amount.

At that point, it will be up to the lawyers.  I will say one thing.  The Governor has good lawyers. 

 

Today's Lesson: The Last-Minute Hit Piece

This anonymous post on Sonoran Alliance is a great example of the classic last minute hit piece.

While in the state legislature, Schweikert supported an 8 cent tax increase on diesel fuel (reported in the Phoenix Gazette, “Jobs Riding on Reduction of Trucking Tax,” February 16, 1993, Associated Press).  This measure would have raised the tax to .26 cents a gallon, “one of the highest rates among Western states.” By way of explanation, Schweikert says “A tax collected at the pump catches all truckers equally and eliminates much of the opportunity for fraud,” said Rep. David Schweikert, R-Scottsdale, another sponsor.

Schweikert supporting a tax increase?  Give me a break.  Since I was in the Legislature in 1993 it was easy for me to smell a rat on this one.   

This bill was a TAX REPEAL.  Notice the quote is from the Phoenix Gazette?  The anonymous author conveniently used an out-of-context 15-year old quote from a defunct newspaper to try to allege that Schweikert raised taxes.  This one would be easy to debunk...if we only had access to the defunct Phoenix Gazette archives.

Of course, since the article was from the Associated Press, it ran in the Arizona Daily Star as well.  Here's a copy of the entire article. It's clear that the bill that Schweikert supported was part of a tax reduction package that was supported by the trucking industry and put through by legislative Republicans.

Bill to repeal road-use tax touted as trucker job-saver
The Arizona Daily Star - February 14, 1993
Author: Neil Bibler
The Associated Press

PHOENIX - Arizona stands to lose scores of high-paying jobs unless it gets rid of a tax that costs truckers more than double the national average and nine times what they pay California, lawmakers say.

"Truckers have been avoiding Arizona for years," says Rep. Lela Steffey, R-Mesa.

Steffey wants to repeal a road-use tax she says costs each trucker driving in Arizona an average of $13,500 a year, compared with about $5,500 nationally.

So is there anything that we can actually learn from a hit piece like this?  Yep.  Early voting starts in 3 days, Schweikert has raised nearly a million dollars and has been dropping $50k a week on TV and someone out there is getting really desperate.   

You don't even have to have access to the archives to figure that one out. 

TIME on Your Side?

Earlier this month, I mentioned how surprised I was that Governor Napolitano's policies are so regressive.  Many of her programs benefit the wealthy and middle class and are paid for by the poor.  The best example is her program to increase lottery revenue in order to borrow money to build new buildings at the universities.  Who buys lottery tickets?   Who is going to occupy those new buildings?   'nuff said.

I mentioned the TIME initiative as another example.  The sales tax after all is the most regressive of the major types of taxes and much of TIME's benefits--environmental mitigation, open space and light rail--benefit the middle and upper classes disproportionately.

I marveled at the fact that the Democrats whom I served with in the 1990s would never have tolerated these shifts in wealth from the poor to the rich. 

Apparently I'm not the only one who has been asking these questions.  The District 27 House race features two incumbent Democrats--Minority leader Phil Lopes and Olivia Cajero Bedford--against former State Representative John Kromko. 

The Star asked all three candidates how they would vote on the Governor's TIME initiative.  Here was Kromko's response. 

"It's a tragic thing that someone would fall for a scam like this. This is a deliberate attempt to shift the burden from the rich to the poor." Both Lopes and Cajero Bedford said they planned to vote for the initiative, which would raise the state's sales tax by 17.9 percent — from 5.6 to 6.6 cents on each dollar spent — for 30 years. Cajero Bedford said she would have preferred having the measure call for just a half-cent-per-dollar increase during the first 15 years.

Kromko's exactly right.  His constituents will clearly pay the tax, but they will see very little benefit.  Lopes and Cajero Bedford probably understand that they are selling their constituents short, but the Governor is a harsh mistress.  There would be a high price to pay for opposing TIME on her watch.

We'll see how high a price John Kromko can exact. 

Sloppy, Exaggerated and Wrong

I talk to a lot of reporters and the discussion always migrates to the decline of the newspapers and the rise of the blogosphere.  Inevitably the reporter will shake her head slowly, look down solemnly and quietly lament the inaccuracy of the blogosphere.  Oftentimes they will question whether a free society can continue without the high standards of professionalism and accuracy that are taught in journalism school.  In response to these expressions of deep concern, I try to avoid laughing so hard that the coffee comes out of my nose.

Reporters really think the mainstream media is accurate.  Here's an email I received from a friend this morning (I've removed the name of the person mentioned in the email.)

Mr. X was a media and communication instructor at my leadership conference in Lake Placid 2 weeks ago. We got into it during a class, over his views on print vs. blogger integrity and accuracy. You would have loved it. Staff/Faculty had to settle him down at one point…

Rather than go through my massive archive of media mistakes, I just pointed him to this editorial in today's Tribune.  It's a great example of how media coverage is sloppy and wrong. 

The Tribune editorial board opposes Prop 105.  That's the proposition that would require a majority of the registered votes to pass an initiative that raises revenue or compels private individuals or the state to spend money. 

Let's start with simply sloppy.  Here's the lead sentence from today's editorial.

The organizers behind this year's Proposition 105 have a easy message - they want to stop special interest groups from using the ballot box to take more of your money unless a true majority of Arizonans agree it's a good idea.

That description "True majority of Arizonans" is obviously wrong. 

The reason I say it's sloppy is that the editorial board knows it's wrong and they get it right later in the editorial.  Later they say the requirement is that an initiative "would have to be approved by a majority of all registered voters".  Since a lot of Arizonans aren't registered to vote or even qualified to vote, there's obviously a huge difference between "majority of Arizonans" and "majority of all registered voters." 

Normally, I just let stuff like that go, but journalists don't seem to notice mistakes like that when they lecture me about the accuracy of the mainstream media. 

Then there's the arguments that are either exaggerated or simply wrong.  Here's a great example from the same editorial.

In recent years, successful measures dealing with a state minimum wage, tribal gaming and ending state benefits for illegal immigrants all would have been blocked if Prop. 105 already were in effect.

Really?  According to whom?  The initiative requires that a majority of the electorate approve a measure that "mandates a spending obligation" on either the private sector or government.    The minimum wage bill would clearly fall in this category but how does "ending state benefits for illegal immigrants" meet the definition?  I've talked to the author of Prop. 105 and he certainly doesn't think that "tribal gaming" or "ending state benefits for illegal immigrants" would have been blocked if Prop. 105 were already in effect.

The editorial writers either don't understand the initiative, or they have decided to grossly exaggerate its effects.

Sloppy, exaggerated and wrong all in one editorial...the perfect mainstream media hat trick.  The media don't understand why the general public doesn't trust them.  I guess it's because, you know, we aren't stupid.

Point that out the next time a journalist bemoans the fall of Western Civilization resulting from the collapse of the New York Times and its cohorts.

Race to be the most annoying?

Spell check is a wonderful but dangerous tool.  Check out this quote from Paul Giblin's profile of the District 5 candidates.

Mike O'Neil, president of the Tempe public opinion firm O'Neil Associates, said the candidates must find important nuisances in their personal messages or biographies.

Dang, if I had known that the race would be about the candidates "nuisances" I would have run.  After all, I live in the district and I'm more annoying than the whole rest of the field combined. 

ACRI in WSJ

Saturday night I was at Fashion Square buying another Scrabble Dictionary and I ran into Rep. Kyrsten Sinema on her way from Tiffany's to Nordstrom.  We chatted for a little while and I had a chance to compliment her on this article in the Wall Street Journal.  I thought that you might be interested as well. 

Other opponents of Mr. Connerly deplore the blocking and name-calling. Arizona State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema told me that initiatives have been used to pass ideas such as campaign finance and redistricting reform often opposed by entrenched legislators. "People have a right to sign a petition, hear the arguments and then vote," she says. Ms. Sinema thinks Arizonans can be persuaded to vote down ACRI's measure, much as they voted down a ban on gay marriage in 2006.

Shouldn't they use Pilings or Something?

Here's a funny headline from azcentral.

Obama feeds the 5,000.

The "enlightened" Americans at the New York Times, NPR and Eastern Universities may think that Obama's Messianic appeal to Europeans is edgy and sophisticated, but I find it really creepy. 

Dude.  These 200,000 people hate America.  They don't just hate President Bush, Dick Cheney and Wal-Mart; they hate NASCAR, football and the Simpsons.  The only things they seem to like about America is Jerry Lewis and not having to pay for their own defense.

Maybe it's just me, but I think there are a lot of Democrats who work in brake shops and diners in Ohio and Michigan who look at this picture and get really ticked off.