Above is the supposed contact list for the DRB and Planning Commission. If these links fail to work, blame the board members for participating in the super-secret government run my Manross and Dolan.

If you have any questions concerning any planned projects, don't hesitate to contact the ones above who make the decisions.

"May we continue on are journey" were the words spoken by the Boy Scout in a prayer as he opened the city council meeting last Tuesday, March 18, 2008.  With that hope still freshly delivered to the many people that had gathered at City Hall in Scottsdale that evening we were all once again reminded that whoever told you life should be fair, must have been on a campaign against the truth!

I know that The City of Scottsdale acknowledges and respects the presence of the equine facilities and lifestyle here. However, thanks to a few Councilman that were not willing to stand up and protect our property and rights, an ordinance was passed that will make maintaining this part of the historic fabric and character of Scottsdale almost impossible to maintain.  Apparently they must feel street signs, subdivisions and Libraries named Arabian, Stagecoach and Mustang get the job done. 

I want to acknowledge the courage it took for Councilman Tony Nelson, Jim Lane and Bob Littlefield to "No" Where to Draw the Line and remember what it takes to Ride for the Brand!!

Council persons Betty Drake, Wayne Ecton, Ron McCullagh and Mayor Mary Manross all cowered at the first sign they may have to draw and defend the town’s people counting on them to protect their property and rights.  Each one of them hid behind the excuse that the "Big Bad Federal Government" wouldn't give the town the money they need for the "light railroad" they want to build.

Just a few things to ponder in response to their excuse .....

This Governing body has been told that if an ordinance is not passed bringing the city of Scottsdale, Arizona into compliance with State Statute 1552 by March 31, 2008, Federal funding, particularly Federal Highway funds, could be compromised. If this were true, those actions of the United States Government would be nothing short of extortion.

Indeed, every member of the Scottsdale City Council swears a solemn oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona.

To say that a Federal Agency has the authority to dictate policy, or implement standards within the boundaries of a sovereign State, would be to perpetrate fraud against the Citizens of Arizona. Those county and state officials who assist in such actions are in violation of their Oaths of Office, and as such have committed "Perjury to their Oath of Office" and have committed a Tort of Negligence against the victims and as such are subject to having their bonds executed upon. 

Furthermore, we find that the Environmental Protection Act of 1969, and the Environmental Protection agency, of whom Governor Napolitano says have implemented these two Federal deadlines upon the State of Arizona, fall under U.S. code Title 42, which has never been enacted into positive law. This agency has no jurisdiction within the boundaries of the State, save and except those lands which have been ceded to the Federal Government by the Arizona State Legislature. 

"Decency, security and liberty alike, demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the Citizen. In a government of laws, existence of government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of law that the end justifies the means…would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face" Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, Olmstead v. U.S. 277 U.S., 438,465 (1928) 

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."-- Thomas Jefferson

"The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the State’s officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty." Justice Antonin Scalia, United States Supreme Court ruling in Printz v. U.S., 521 U.S. 898, June 27, 1997

"The Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program." in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), at 188.

[U.S. v. Bevans, 16 U.S. 336 (1818), reaff. 19 U.S.C.A., section 1401(h).]

This is codified at 40 U.S.C. Sections 3111 and 3112 affirmed by Adams v. United States.     "Unless and until notice of acceptance of jurisdiction has been given. Federal courts are without jurisdiction to punish under criminal laws of the United States an act committed on lands acquired by the United States, where the applicable statute (Act of Oct 9, 1940, 40 USC 255 amended to 40 USC 3111 and 3112) provides that United States agencies and authorities may accept exclusive or partial jurisdiction over lands acquired by the United States by filing notice with the governor of the state, or by taking other similar appropriate action, and that unless and until the United States has so accepted jurisdiction it shall be conclusively presumed that no such jurisdiction has been accepted"

    "That state statutes authorize the United States to take jurisdiction over land acquired by the United States within the state cannot confer jurisdiction upon federal courts to punish under criminal laws of the United States an act committed thereon, where at the time of the alleged offense notice of acceptance of jurisdiction contemplated by the Act of Oct. 9, 1940 40 USC 255 had not been given."  Adams v. United States, 319 U.S. 312; 87 L.Ed. 1421(1943) 

"The Government of the United States is one of delegated powers alone.  Its authority is defined and limited by the Constitution.  All powers not granted to it by that instrument are reserved to the States or the people."  [United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)]

X Amendment; "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

This is known as the "Separations of Powers Doctrine" and could not have been more eloquently expressed as it was in New York v. United States 505 US 144 (1992) ;

"To the contrary, the Constitution divides authority between federal and state governments for the protection of individuals. State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: "Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 759 (1991)(Blackmun, J., dissenting). "Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front" Gregory v. [505 U.S. 144,182] Ashcroft, 50l U.S. ,at 458. See the Federalist NO. 51. p. 323. (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).

Article IV Section 4:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State of this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion, and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

This was made clear by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Lopez;

"The foundation of our republican form of government is the notion of "separation of powers". In the legal field, this is called ‘the separation of powers doctrine’. U.S. v. Lopez; 514 U.S. 549 (1995) 

Article XIV Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; or to deny to any within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 

Article 2, Section 13 of the Constitution of the State of Arizona begs clarification of SB 1552 as well.

No law shall be enacted granting to any citizen, class of citizenship or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities, which upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens and corporations. 

Under the doctrine of "Conflict of Laws" the states are supreme and Thomas Jefferson made this clear

"With respect to our State and federal governments, I do not think their relations are correctly understood by foreigners. They generally suppose the former subordinate to the latter. But this is NOT.[emphasis added] the case. They are co-ordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. To the State governments are reserved all legislative and administration[Not to the federal government] , in affairs which concern their own citizens only, and to the federal government is given whatever concerns foreigners, or the citizens of other States; these functions alone being made federal. The one is domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government; neither having control over the other, but within its own department." –Thomas Jefferson [‘Writing of Thomas Jefferson" pub by Taylor & Maury, Washington DC, 1854, quote number VII 355-61, from correspondence to Major John Cartwright, June 5, 1824.]

" Private international law assumes a more important aspect in the United States than elsewhere, for the reason that the several states, although united under the same sovereign authority and governed by the same laws for all national purposes embraced by the Federal Constitution, are otherwise, at least so far as private international law is concerned, in the same relation as foreign countries." Hanley v. Donoghue, 116 U.S. 1, 6 S.Ct. 242, 29 L.Ed. 535(1885); "The principles of private international law or conflict of laws are of ancient origin and are part of the common law in England and in the United States" Snashall v. Metropolitan R.Co., 19 D.C. 399, 8 Mackey 399(D.C. 1890)

28 U.S.C. Section 1603 (c) The "United States" includes all territory and waters, continental or insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

"It now is settled in the United States and recognized elsewhere that the territory subject to its jurisdiction includes the land areas under its dominion and control, the ports, harbors, bays and other enclosed arms of the sea along its coast and a marginal belt of the sea extending from the coast line outward a marine league, or three geographic miles. Church v. Hubbart, 2 Cranch, 187, 234; the Ann, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 397, p. 926; United States v. Smiley, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 16317, p. 1132; Manchester v. Massachusetts, 139 U.S. 240, 257 , 258 S., 11 Sup. Ct. 559; Louisiana v. Mississippi, 202 U.S. 1, 52 , 26 S. Sup. Ct. 408; 1 Kent's Com. (12th Ed.) *29; 1 Moore, [262 U.S. 100, 123]   International Law Digest, 145; 1 Hyde, International Law, 141, 142, 154; Wilson, International Law (8th Ed.) 54; Westlake, International Law ( 2d Ed.) p. 187, et seq; Wheaton, International Law (5th Eng. Ed. [ Phillipson]) p. 282; 1 Oppenheim International Law (3d Ed.) 185-189, 252. This, we hold, is the territory which the amendment designates as its field of operation; and the designation is not of a part of this territory but of 'all' of it." Cunard S.S. Co. v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 100; 43 S.Ct. 504 (1923)

US- Cherokee nation v. Georgia, Ga., 5 Pet. 1, 55,8 L.Ed. 25; Ga.- Seaboard Air-line R.Co. v. Phillips, 42 S.E. 494, 496, 117 Ga. 98.

"A State does not owe its origin to the Government of the United States, in the highest or in any of its branches. It was in existence before it. It derives its authority from the same pure and sacred source as itself: The voluntary and deliberate choice of the people…A State is altogether exempt from the jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States, or from any other exterior authority, unless in the special instances when the general Government has power derived from the Constitution itself." [Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall, (U.S.) 419 (Dall.) (1794)]

"All legislation is prima facie territorial." American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347, 356-357 (1909) 

"Legislation is presumptively territorial and confined to limits over which the law-making power has jurisdiction." New York Central R.R. Co. v. Chisholm, 268 U.S. 29, 31-32 (1925) 

...[T]he "canon of construction which teaches that legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States ...." U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217, 222    70 S.Ct. 10 (1949)

The "emergency clause" (EC) use with the bond issuance last Tuesday night was invoked by the Finance GM and now interim Treasurer Craig Clifford, to obtain the highest level of flexibility in setting the interest rate date.

As is usual it was placed on the consent agenda. I moved it to the regular agenda to have Mr. Clifford’s explain its use publicly in the bond issuance authorization. He noted the following:

Mr. Clifford’s explanations set forth the reasons that any Treasurer would want to utilize the EC (Emergency Clause) to benefit the City (and thus the Citizens) financially in the issuance of bonds.

It is the City Attorney that gives the legal advice that this method is OK legally and in accordance with State Statutes, City Code and the City Charter.

Noting this bond authorization as an administrative action versus a legislative action and prior "case" law as her justification for its legality, Mr. Clifford and the Council typically is going to manage the issue within the framework of that advice.

As far as I know, the Council has not, other than the advice in the Kiva on March 18th, received specific advice from the City Attorney on the application of the EC, and we should.

The practical affect of its use here is inconsequential. It use on legislative issues like the "Waterfront" and "SkySong" is far more potentially damaging to the political process.

That said, the improper precedent of its use in any case can be damaging.

W. J. "Jim" Lane
Councilman, City of Scottsdale
wjlane@cyberspeedway.net

(Return to Top)

This week the eight-year tenure of Jan Dolan as Scottsdale’s City Manager came to an end.  Interestingly, most of the comment about this event has been about how it came about rather than what it means.

Much has been made of the supposed secrecy surrounding Dolan’s ouster.  For my part there was no secrecy – my complaints about the way she was running the city are long-standing and well-publicized.  I did not say anything at the Council meeting where her separation agreement was approved because it would have been unseemly and unnecessary to be "piling on" now that she has been relieved of her duties as City Manager.  Instead of criticizing her personally I would rather take the lessons of her tenure and make sure that we do not allow the next City Manager (interim or permanent) to make the same mistakes in the future.

It has been interesting to see how vehemently the local establishment has been trashing Councilman Wayne Ecton for his change of heart regarding Dolan’s position.  In addition to the public pummeling Wayne has taken in the papers and blogs, some critics of his decision have suggested behind the scenes that Wayne may be senile, or even insane!

This level of criticism is, of course, ridiculously over the top.  It is one thing to disagree with Wayne’s decision on this (or any other) issue.  But to call him crazy says more about the people making those claims that than it does about Ecton.

I find it hypocritical that all of a sudden changing one’s position has become a symptom of mental illness.  Supposedly we all agree that Councilmen should be open-minded and willing to change in light of new facts, and that they should listen to the public when they make decisions.  Yet, when Wayne did exactly that, people claim there must be something wrong with him.

I have been quoted as saying that I do not care why Wayne changed his mind.  That is a true statement.  OK, I do care a little, mostly because I am curious.  And I agree that if Wayne is concealing some material fact about this issue then that would be wrong.  If he was threatened or coerced in any way he should speak up.  But the public elected us to the Council to do the right thing, not to sit around psychoanalyzing our colleagues’ motives.  I am glad Wayne changed his mind and did the right thing for the city.

While reading all of the invective thrown at Wayne I tried to imagine what would have been the reaction if I had done something similar.  What would happen if, for instance, I suddenly announced that I supported a light rail line right down the middle of Scottsdale Road (not to worry, not happening, this is just a fantasy)?  I suspect the establishment-types would laud my sudden open-mindedness, the local papers would be running editorials about what a visionary I had become, and the pigeons would already be pooping on my statue in the mall!

Whatever is in Wayne’s heart he deserves some credit for doing the right thing here.  Not only did he support a badly-needed change in management at City Hall, he also supported the appointment of a Treasurer separate from the City Manager, another long-overdue reform I have advocated for years. 

Personally I hope Wayne changes his mind on some other issues, such as height and density.  And I will happily give him credit for those decisions when he does.

Councilman Bob Littlefield
bob@boblittlefield.com

(Return to Top)

For Immediate Release: March 20, 2008

When the Hanover Project was presented to City Council on February 19, 2008, nearly every public comment addressed the project’s lack of architectural creativity in addition to the height and mass as unsatisfactory. Regardless, with the exception of Councilmen Nelssen and Littlefield, who vigorously opposed the project, Mayor Manross and Council members Lane, Drake, Ecton and McCullagh voted for approval.

These five council members, supported by developer consultants including Susan Bitter-Smith and John Berry, have voted for nearly every oversized, design deficient project that has come before them with such blatant disregard for public input and neighborhood opposition that one has to wonder if they are working for the developers rather than the citizens of Scottsdale who elected them.

The Hanover Referendum was initiated to address this obvious of lack responsiveness by some council members to the long held community vision of moderate density and height in our downtown as well as the maintenance of a standard of livability which reflects the attraction that Scottsdale has, over the years, enjoyed and that the adjoining neighborhoods are entitled to expect in the future.

Residents and neighborhoods throughout Scottsdale have supported the concept of the citizen’s right to refer decisions made by the City Council with which they don’t agree to a ballot for public vote and are universally outraged at the campaign of intimidation undertaken by Hanover and its consultants with the blatant intent to obstruct and disrupt the referendum process. Individuals such as Nan Nesvig who is running for City Council, neighborhoods, and neighborhood organizations such as Coalition of Pinnacle Peak (COPP) and Coalition of Greater Scottsdale (COGS) have joined together in this effort.

The message that the development community and City Council need to understand is that the tactics employed by these consultants will not be tolerated and that every similar project which does not meet the reasonable expectations of the community and the affected neighborhoods will be referred, regardless of the number of thugs employed to interfere with the Constitutional right of the citizens to refer Council actions.

While the underhanded and illegal behavior of the developer and its consultants severely impacted the referendum effort, the outrage and determination which resulted was translated into the collection of more than 3,000 signatures on petitions, far surpassing the required 1,961 needed. It is expected that a legal challenge will be filed by the developer in an act of desperation and we are resolved to meet that challenge head on.

 (Return to Top)

 ~ Hanover: The Aftermath

The Referendum was a roaring success, despite all of the documented "Goon Squads" reportedly hired for Hanover’s representative Eric Kenny by Technical Solutions owned and operated by Susan Bitter-Smith and her husband Paul Smith, in an illegal effort to stop the referendum. (Click here to see language censored video )

Should Hanover and it’s representative try to legally(?) stop the referendum through typical legal loopholes but questionable maneuvering, they will make it still worse on themselves and the other developers who wish to develop the properties they have purchased at top price to gain a ride on the old money train which has now been stopped by running out of track.

This effort should send an unequivocally strong message to the developers who are trying to get "Something for Nothing" from the city of Scottsdale through the Manross Administration, the Council Majority, and formerly facilitated by a cunning and wily City Manager Jan Dolan, that the game is over and you have lost, unless you play by the city’s rules by fully involving the taxpayers.

The free ride is over ladies and gentlemen of the development and quick-buck community, the public has found their voice and plan to use it as often as necessary to generate the type of growth necessary to keep the city sustainable, widely diversified, and fully self-sufficient in spite of the huge billion dollar deficit dumped on the taxpayers by an out of control Mayor, City Council majority and top city management staff.

By hoodwinking the city staff, Planning Commission, DRB, and City Council into approving projects the residents are and have been strongly against and have made their feelings known loud and clear, the developers have doomed their existence in the city unless they act as Yari Brothers and Wescor by bypassing the hired guns such as Attorney John Berry and Technical Solutions and coming to the citizens and activists FIRST with their projects for ideas and tentative approvals.

John Berry is an excellent zoning attorney who is paid to do as asked by his clientele as are Susan Bitter-Smith and Technical Solutions. Unfortunately, business has been very good for both enterprises because the Manross Administration had never turned down any of their projects until recently when the public started figuring out what was going on and learned how to stop it.

These companies seemed to forget that the taxpayers were paying the bills, not the out of control Manross Administration or the developers so the hired guns appeared to lose contact with where they lived and who they should have taken into consideration when taking the jobs they took representing the developers with the outlandish projects and designs. There were reportedly far too many half truths and just as many facts withheld in many presentations on projects that are now sitting idle and probably will not ever get approval because of these negative problems.

With their newfound powerful voice which has come from all sections of the city and from some powerful citizen organizations, the citizens now know they CAN exercise their rights and make a difference concerning what is going to be built, including where and what the city participation will be, if any.

None of the Activists or involved citizens wants to stop growth in any way at all. They DO want CONTROLLED GROWTH where the infrastructure improvement and LEEDs certified design is part of any deal, where parking for commercial projects is underground providing more open space for public uses, and where the city remains a family friendly city where working class a well as the affluent can live in harmony through a publicly approved and understandable general plan.

They don’t want dense high rises that block views or add tremendously to the traffic congestion, nor do they want any building over 40 feet anywhere other than in the current downtown area designated for taller buildings. An exception would be any project which would be located in a depressed area that would immediately bring relief to that specific area without taking anything away.

They want the general plan update completed with full input from the citizens and none from the developers or staff other than as relating to current zoning laws and current city ordinances before ANY new projects are approved unless they have full public approval first.

It’s time the developers, city staff, the Planning Commission, the DRB and City Council majority woke up to the reality of what the Hanover Referendum has shown all of us: Dirty politics and secrecy have been uncovered and the taxpayers have discovered how to very successfully defeat it.

(Return to Top)

Jan Dolan has been successfully banished from the "Queen Mary" Manross Castle and Kingdom, so where do we go from here?

The City Council needs to vote to keep David Ellison as the acting City Manager until a new council is seated and a new city manager, if necessary, is chosen, and banish John "Keep Code Enforcement away from downtown" Little to anywhere other than a city management position. The employees don’t trust him because he was one of Dolan’s turncoat goons and he is not knowledgeable about much citywide as well as being indoctrinated by Dolan’s "Storm Trooper" ways of doing things.

Employees do trust Ellison because they worked with him before and he is knowledgeable, a people person and personable while not having been corrupted by Jan Dolan and her dire need for secrecy.

Roger Klingler, who is not known as the brightest bulb on the tree by many, needs to move on and away from being employed by the City of Scottsdale. He was a part and parcel to the Hualapai and other fiascos being that he was Dolan’s right hand man on that and other projects. When cornered and questioned concerning that fiasco at a City Council meeting, his face turned bright red, he stammered and stuttered and stomped away without saying anything reasonable or understandable or that made any sense.

Kroy Ekblaw is another who has coasted and has used many of the city assets to his advantage according to many employees and needs to retire or find another city for which to work.

We need to start by banishing one of the Charter Officers, and some senior directors or division staff hired or promoted by Jan Dolan with the exception of Police Chief Rodbell and Fire Chief McDonald.

We can start by sending City Attorney Deborah "any legal opinion you want Mayor" Robberson who said she wasn’t a Charter Officer but changing her tune when it came time for a raise in salary, to the showers at her home in PV permanently and hire the original choice of the insightful council members from Tucson if she is available.

Then, Mary "I never saw traffic calming and roundabout I didn’t like" O’Connor needs to be immediately relieved of her duties with all plans for transportation projects stopped until all current streets, curbs, gutters and driveways are brought up to standards with the exception of the widening of Indian Bend Road and the addition of the bridge for Indian Bend Road between Hayden and Scottsdale Roads. There also needs to be a full audit concerning where the 2000 Bond monies have gone and why.

The Indian School Road project needs to be stopped immediately so that a new plan will have it widened, not narrowed to accommodate wider sidewalks and bike lanes at the cost of much more congestion. We need East/West arteries that will move traffic, not congest it and cause even more pollution as well as tempers.

Paul "I know everything and you know nothing" Porell needs to take his ego and red Corvette and park it somewhere else outside of the employ of the city of Scottsdale.

When citizens ask for reasonable additions to roadways which were there for decades and he refuses to accommodate then with lame and stupid excuses, its time for him to "blow town" and resign city employment permanently.

Planning Department:

Frank Gray and any Staff Manager or Staff members promoted by Gray or Dolan need to be gone immediately. Bringing back Jeff Fisher might be a productive place to start in the interim to get things back on track. Gray says he doesn’t need the job anyway so why does he stay? Our guess is to qualify for still another state retirement benefit?

There have been far too many bad errors and decisions made by this department because of unqualified people who are drowning and unable to perform up to acceptable levels as far as necessary qualifications are concerned i.e. cases in point: home built on another’s land, or too close to the lot line, or not to the specs of the plans, or too tall because of an inspector not actually eyeballing the property, etc, etc, etc.

How about a Frank Gray decision about an alley which never legally was used therefore never existed but was given to a landowner on the opposite side of the alley who never deeded any part of the alley to the city with those that deeded it losing out on what was legally theirs?

It totally amazes employees how Neal Shearer has become what they consider an SS "Storm Trooper" under Dolan where he was originally so personable and liked pre-Dolan. Neal needs to retire and move on for the good of the city and her employees. He too is considered a Dolan turncoat from which he cannot recover his original reputation.

When Neal Shearer and Frank Gray can take a retired city employee now working as a Contracted Employee off a city campus to a public restaurant and interrogate him on three separate occasions without cause and without representation or witnesses, then without explanation cancel his contract, something is really rotten and it’s not in Denmark (but maybe Sweden, huh Frank?).

Although some employees in and out of the department disagree, we think Raun Keagy needs to be given one chance to clean house of non-productive employees, then turn things around, but he must do it quickly and without Malcolm Hankins who needs to go back to Phoenix from whence he came ASAP.

According to department and non-department employees, Hankins is not respected by employees and is seen as a slacker because of the way they say he manufactures numbers to make the department look busier when in reality they’re not getting as much done as they could if Hankins busy work for the employees was reduced. They also say that Hankins leaves work early claiming he’s going "into the field" where no one from any city department has ever seen him where he said he was going.

There are many issues which Keagy has tried to handle but we strongly suspect (and have been verified by city hall insiders) was stopped under direct orders of Dolan, especially being told to leave developer assembled properties by certain developers alone and not citing them for numerous code infractions, not prosecuting repeat offenders and not filing charges against those violating NAOS and ESLO ordinances while writing orders to clean up their properties and HOA boards ASAP without exception.

We will be scrutinizing all actions of Keagy over the next few weeks to see if things improve as quickly as they should with Dolan gone.

Craig Clifford is a very intelligent gentleman and really knows his business BUT, he doesn’t live and won’t move within the city limits of Scottsdale and therefore cannot be appointed to the Treasurers position; we will never allow another situation such as the Robberson debacle to occur.

We need to appoint someone who fully understands all aspects of bonding, deficits, controlled spending, rainy day funds, finding hidden monies, etc. This person needs to be as clean as the driven snow so we really know where we are.

We strongly suspect that Dolan was running a "slush fund" hiding as much as ^$500 million dollars at times which was slipped away from other monies so she could do as she wanted without oversight by the council or the public. We know she had a directive such as that in the new budget which reportedly included unlisted and untraceable monies for secretly investigating employees, but pulled it and the budget because some council members found out about it and questioned what it was and what it meant which she apparently refused to answer.

We know that now that Jan Dolan, "Scottsdale’s Queen of Mean" in many employees’ eyes, is gone and she can no longer hurt them. There will be more revelations as time goes by and as employees become more comfortable and trusting of their superiors, especially when others mentioned above are removed from city employ also.

We know there are city employees who watch national TV on city time in their city offices while some are practicing adultery with other city employees on city time while both are married to others. This needs to be stopped immediately. Morale turpitude by employees, especially on city time (is occurring now) or on their own time is a very destructive and immoral situation (probably illegal and grounds for immediate dismissal), especially when other employees know of the closed office door trysts within city offices on city time but are threatened with their jobs if they say anything.

Manross still scares many employees and they’ll still be very careful to whom they talk until she is thrown out of office or at least neutered by a new council majority who respects the citizens and employees instead of the developers and the Manross money people.

We’re also very sure that we’ll never know for sure where some taxpayer monies have gone or why, and we’ll never know many of the secrets which Manross will carry with her to her grave for obvious reasons.

There are more less serious situations which exist at this time but we’ll give those employees a chance to clean up their acts before we decide to expose them too.

We think it’s very clear that it’s time for some major changes from city hall all the way down into the trenches of employees adulterous behavior.

Again we have the council sitting on their hands and going alone with MAG and others who think we need severe dust control in the valley instead of coming up with some reasonable, workable options for all involved.

Of course it couldn’t have anything to do with our illustrious Mayor Manross being the Vice Chairperson of MAG could it (Maricopa Association of Governments)?

EXCUSE US!!

This is a desert folks and any and all deserts have dust in mass volumes! That’s why they are called deserts!!

I fully understand the need for some controls on certain areas of operations but to propose what has been proposed to hold down dust in non-construction areas, or on Agricultural lands, or the open desert is totally ludicrous and unworkable.

We’re told not to use gas leaf blowers because of the dust, exhaust and the noise: Fine, what about the electrically or battery operated ones? Oh I forgot, using electricity is supposedly causing global warming. OK, let’s try using the garden hose: Opps, I forgot, we need to conserve water so we can’t do that either. So we’re left using a broom which causes as much or more dust than a vacuum or blowers because we have to take hundreds more strokes with a broom to get the stuff where we can pick it up.

Get the picture?

Is dust really a problem? Sure it can be but when people move here, they knew, or should have known that they were moving to a desert and they should expect sand storms, dust storms, heavy torrential rains, hail storms and high winds during the Monsoon Season along with the wonderful winter weather and scores of places to visit and activities in which they participate.

My family vacationed in Phoenix in 1956 and again in 1959 and in both instances we experienced a dust storm now referred to as a "Haboob" as well as one hell of a thunderstorm (hail the size of marbles, raindrops the size of a 50¢ pieces, and wind that rattles the motel windows until we thought they would blow in) and a microburst in Tucson and again in Tombstone which tore down trees and signs. Having been raised in the Mojave Desert, it was nothing new and we knew it came with the territory. All we needed to do was get inside and wait it out; no big deal.

These are an expected set of events in the desert.

Sure, people have breathing problems when the dust storms come, when cars drive on dirt roads, when animals run or frolic in their contained arenas, or when the jets take off from Sky Harbor…..

What??

Sure. Sit up on the SR-51 or Camelback Mountain for you hikers any morning just after dawn where you can see the runways where the flights are leaving Sky Harbor and look at the build-up of burnt jet fuel (JP-8) smoke as it fills the downtown area.

So why does the state, county, and city get their dainty panties in a wad over a situation which CANNOT be solved effectively under any reasonable or cost effective manner?

It would appear that this entire action to retard dust in the desert air is strictly dollar driven and is not in the best interest of Scottsdale residents or state residents for that matter.

Is the money so damned important that we are going to;

Seriously, we know that dust can be a problem but if you are affected by dust, you need to find a way to deal with it reasonably, economically and effectively without putting people out of business and killing the industries that drive our state economy.

If it means moving to a better climate without living in the desert, so be it. Two of my children have done exactly that being that they felt it was their personal problem, not that of the State, County or City.

Think about that for a few minutes; Is the nanny-state of your chosen residency responsible for your health, or is it your responsibility to live where your health problems are minimized?

In her State of the City Address in 2007 the Mayor Mary Manross clearly stated:

The Mayor said,

And then the Mayor said,

And then the Mayor said,

And the Mayor continued to say,

Remember those words because the Mayor lead the "super majority" to invoke the "Emergency Clause" even after the City Treasurer, Mr. Clifford, said that those Bonds might not be sold within the time constraints establishing an emergency.

 And then the Mayor said,

We have watched Mayor Manross allow 3,000 work force/market rate rental housing units disappear and by and large take those residents with them and seeing a ^$9 million loss in sales tax money from rentals.

We have watched Mayor Manross turn neighborhood against neighborhood, business against residents, people who live here against people who work here and would like to live here.

We have watched Mayor Manross allow things to spiral into chaos at City Hall by simply ignoring the City Charter and the General Plan.

We have watched as Mayor Manross and the council majority openly allowed City Manager/Treasurer Jan Dolan to decimate the experienced employed staff of the senior, highly respected and most knowledgeable employees in favor of inexperienced, unqualified, and less costly replacements who can’t hold a candle to those they replaced.

To top it all off, we have watched as the mayor has delivered to us this year a serious budget short fall.

Isn’t Enough, Enough???

March 3, was the 11^th anniversary of National Reading Week. In honor of that week and in celebration of that great writer, Dr. Seuss, I begin this article with these immortal words, "The time has come. The time has come. The time is now. Just go. Go. Go! I don't care how. You can go by foot. You can go by cow….You can go on skates. You can go on skis. You can go in a hat. But, please go. Please!"

You know the rest of that wonderful story. Moreover, you know it if you ever volunteered at a school. Yep, I did even down to cooking up "Green Eggs and Ham" literally for Mrs. Wolf’s kindergarten class at Hohokam Elementary School.

This is all about schools and costs of operating them. It is about the rising energy costs and the blind eye we all turn toward rising costs of energy and options to reduce costs that are really starting to hurt our education systems.

Salt River Project and Arizona Public Service know how to help reduce those costs. For years they have had solar energy programs that could be employed to reduce heating, cooling and lighting costs. Since 2002 they have had programs available to accomplish these cost cuts.

Along with the Arizona Solar Center, a non-profit organization and the Arizona Department of Commerce, and the United States Energy Department’s "How To Plan, Finance, Design, Build, and Operate An EnergySmart School program they have put together the tools for school districts to cut the cost for energy use."

Have we taken advantage of this expertise? Not really. There are some demonstration projects operating in the Tucson area and other remote areas of Arizona, but by and large the Valley of the Sun school districts have pretty much ignored them.

Scottsdale sure has ignored them despite some activist types pushing them forward long before the new high schools were built.

It is hard to blame Scottsdale alone because even the Arizona School Facilities Board doesn’t include these practices in their guidelines for school construction. This is odd since the Arizona Department of Commerce has a whole list of options for energy conservation and is aligned with the US Energy Departments EnergySmart Schools and the Solar Schools Program.

Picture this, and it can be done, is in fact being done in Third World Nations:

Solar collectors can be constructed as part of the energy systems for each and every one of our schools, K – 12. Each system can have a curriculum designed around it and an operating and monitoring program that the students can assist in maintaining. The solar power can be used by the schools during hours of operation and when the school is not in session power can be stored or sold to the power grid.

Cost cuts, a curriculum and an energy program that contributes to the community at large.

The problem is that the State Legislature would need to address these energy needs so schools can incorporate them. Financial outlay at the beginning would be higher than norm for construction purposes, but with the direction we are headed across the board on energy costs surely all parties could work together to make sure that the initial expenses were kept as low as possible.

The above mentioned tools have been available since 2002 and we need to commit to using them.

Nancy Cantor
Scottsdale

It was with great pleasure that many noted the dismissal of our inept and incompetent City Manager/Treasurer. During the past two years, I have advised on the many failures of this individual in carrying out her job. Clearly, you were content to keep her in place.

We can only determine that you did so because she carried your often eccentric and destructive mandates forward. Now that her public and private failures have rendered her even too toxic for your administration, we would hope that you would recognize the need for an intelligent, competent Mayor and resign at the earliest opportunity.

Your public sorrow at her firing showed your usual lack of judgment, and was embarrassing, to say the least.

Sincerely,

Steve Rivero-Lowen
Scottsdale

(Return to Top)

 ~ Is Mayor Manross Really "a Mayor"?

According to Webster’s the following defines the word "Mayor:"

Main Entry: may·or Pronunciation: mā-ər, mer, especially before names mer

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English maire, from Anglo-French, from Latin major greater — more at major

Date: 14th century : an official elected or appointed to act as chief executive or nominal head of a city, town, or borough — may·or·al, mā-ə-rəl, mer-əl; mā-ȯr-əl, adjective

Article 2. Sec. 6. Duties of the mayor.

Have you ever heard Mayor Mary Manross make a motion, or second any motion during her reign as mayor which is allowed by the City Charter? Was/is she afraid to make a judgment because she is unsure of the popularity of her position rather than the legality of it, residents be damned? We definitely think that is absolutely the case.

(Return to Top)

 ~Letters to the Editor  

If you don’t know by now, last Tuesday YOUR Council Majority, (‘On-Her-Way-Out Mary’ Manross, Wayne-‘The Tourist Ecton,’ ‘Wrong-way- Ron,’ and’ Buck-a-woo Betty’), all caved to State imposed threats to dictate away your private property rights.

Senate Bill 1552 includes provisions that make it mandatory to pave (or dust abate) any and all private parking, maneuvering, ingress, and egress areas exceeding 3000 sq. ft. This will severely impact almost every equestrian facility in the City. Enforcement will be done by visible (subjective) observation and fines could exceed hundreds of dollars per offense. In order for the City itself to comply with PM10 regulations, it WILL cost Scottsdale’s taxpayers at least one million dollars to spray drinking water onto dirt in the desert. Can you think of better places to spend millions of taxpayer dollars? How about our aging infrastructure?

Even if you don’t live in a desert /rural area of OUR Scottsdale, this should enrage and engage you. It affects your children’s quality of place and life. We ALL want clean air, but regulations should be applied with common sense: your elected officials are here to speak for you.

Let your voice be heard.

Help save Scottsdale’s unique Equestrian heritage. It’s going fast, and will be gone forever!

Stand-up and unite now by telling our Council to pay attention to Scottsdale’s citizen’s rights!

Respectfully,
Cassandra,
An Enraged and Engaged Citizen of Scottsdale

(Return to Top)

Regarding the article about Jan Dolan in Friday's Republic, I never thought I would see the day that I would feel sorry for Jan Dolan. She spent years terrorizing the citizens of Scottsdale.  But I don't think anyone, in a respected position like hers, deserves to be fired at whim.

Ecton is nothing but an old Geezer who can't even speak in coherent sentences without his notes to guide him at the Council meetings. He can't make his own decision on anything, and constantly relies on the staff to tell him what to say and do.

It is obvious that Dolan crossed him and he was determined to make her pay.

So, now that she's gone, we still have more house cleaning to do - starting with Ecton.

Susan Wood
Scottsdale, AZ

(Return to Top)

It has taken some time, but we are finally out from under the worst City Manager that this City, or any other, can imagine.  While this is good news, potentially, for Scottsdale Taxpayers, your performance in this necessary act was ill considered and dismal to the extreme.  How you can equate an inept, incompetent manager with "eight successful years for the city", would be most residents' idea of a bad joke.  I could go into a laundry list of failures involving Ms. Dolan, but I am certain you would not 'get it'.  It is not surprising that our clueless Mayor took a similar tack in this firing.  We were, of course, informed of the very handsome settlement package afforded Ms. Dolan.  This was another unnecessary expense since her dismissal is for cause.

Two months ago you and I had a meeting at City Hall.  This, at your invitation. You advised that you read my e-mails and were 'curious' about someone who feels the need to be involved.  Frankly, as I advised, I have a background working for, and with 'causes'.  One is good government.  As a history/civics grad with several degrees I feel it important to aid in effective governance.  Scottsdale has not enjoyed effective, clean leadership for many years.  Instead, we are lead by hacks that appoint and employ their clones.  Not all are such.  

There are still a couple of courageous Council Members, but oddly, they are considered troublemakers.  Many may point out that this can be humorous.  If you find lap dancing and restaurant names funny.  After our meeting I was struck by one thing you said. That is, you rarely attend City Events, but went to one and were lucky to get a 'favored' parking spot at a police lot.  It became clear that your interest in helping run this city focused power, privilege and other perks that you may claim.

I can only redouble efforts in attempting to move deadwood in city government along.

Fortunately, there was some moved this week.

Finally, we are not helped by the Arizona/Scottsdale Republic and local staff lead by the dull and dubious Michael Ryan.  I would advise that you discontinue city funding for spurious ads in this journal.

The perception being, that for the advertising dollar, City leaders are given a pass.  This is clear in the 'reporting' seen in the Republic and interviews on our Municipal television station.

Sincerely,

Steve Rivero-Lowen
Scottsdale

(Return to Top)

The Indian School Road project begins on April 7, 2008 and will not widen the road. 

Not only will traffic be restricted to one lane in each direction it will move traffic to Chaparral Road and Thomas for 8 months.

This is an expensive Band-Aid that will only add bike lanes and wide sidewalks.  There will be no lanes added it will still be two lanes in each direction.

With all of the development downtown there is no east-west connection to downtown from the freeway.

How will businesses survive?  How will people and emergency vehicles make it to the Hospital in gridlock?

You must contact the newspaper and City Council to let them know of this mistake.  Do not believe City Staff who claim this is needed.  In 4 or 5 years the City will be tearing up Indian School Road to widen it.

Please act fast before this blunder continues!  You must let the City Management know that this is only a farce and the Road must be widened now!  You must let the public know that the Indian School Road project is not going to widen the Road!

Thanks,

A concerned citizen
Scottsdale

(Return to Top)

Judge Dredd, alive and well in the "three ring circus!"

Does anyone remember watching Stallone in Judge Dredd, and that famous line that rang over the TV promos that went, "I am the Law"?

Well, that attitude has claimed the minds of 6 of our supposed leaders.

At the last Council meeting the City passed multiple bond measures totaling hundreds of millions of taxpayer’s dollars and they passed it with the illegal use of the emergency clause. Yep, we talked about this last week, and this week we will talk about it again.

I emailed Jim Lane and we discussed the fact that he was also aware that the use of the emergency clause in this matter was illegal and that if he was going to run for Mayor he should be the person to speak and make a motion to pass the bonds without the use of the emergency clause.

Holding true to his word Jim did bring the matter forward and then he fell apart at the end making the motion to pass the bonds with the use of the emergency clause.

If Jim would have made the motion to amend the use of the emergency clause, the only ‘shining star’ left on the Council, would have seconded the motion and left the rest of the Council scrambling to find a solution. The proposal would have failed since it needed the super majority vote to pass with the emergency clause.

The only shining ‘star left’ on our council is none other than Tony Nelssen; the only council member who knew what was taking place was illegal and the only one who had the ethics to stand up and say that he would not be part of breaking the laws of not only the State, but also Chapter 10 of the City Charter laws.

The point of disgust for me came from none other than our own esteemed Bob Littlefield who sat quietly in his chair and voted with the rest of the council to break the law.

I found all of this extremely disturbing as it was made clear by Craig Clifford that the City had no intent to go out and immediately sell these bonds and he stated that they may not be sold in 90 days and that they may not even be sold in the remaining fiscal year and probably would not be sold until the next fiscal year.

Well, I never asked either of them why they became such wimpy little twits who did not stand up for the laws of the City and the state, however I did call the editor of this web page and ask him just what the hell was going on with Bob and why he would have passed up the opportunity to set something straight? Well, George had no clue either, but said he would ask Bob what was up with that and the response from Bob was about as disgusting as it could have gotten and I am sure that Lanes would have been the same if I asked him.

The excuse was, are you ready for this one?

Bob was afraid of the possibility of bad press coming out and that the residents would not understand the reason why he voted against the bonds. Bob was afraid that by voting against the measure unless the emergency clause was removed, and even after hearing Clifford claim they probably would not sell them in 30 days anyway, our own champion of the City was more afraid of the press making him the bad guy and swaying public opinion of him.

Tony on the other hand asked the City Attorney to read the requirements for using the emergency clause and it was noted that she never did read that clause and instead read some lame court decision that had nothing to do with bonds being issued under the emergency clause and I am sure that the discussion they had in Executive Session the City Attorney told them that if they used it and a notice of claim were filed that the City would not be able to defend their actions.

Hence the reason Tony never got the meaning of the emergency clause read into the meeting by the city attorney.

It also was never read into the meeting because of how highly publicized the meeting was going to be either with the Dolan issue and it would have been all to clear to those in attendance and those watching from home that the City was breaking the laws and doing it with no good reason and who knows, it may have even picked up some publicity if it was read while reporters were there and if they had half a brain could have figured out the City was using it illegally.

The sad truth is that 2 of our Council members knew, damn well, that what they were approving was illegal and they were even told that it was not really necessary and to those of us who respected these two individuals have now lost all respect for them based on the fact they were afraid to do the right thing based on the issue that they may have gotten some bad publicity.

Well, to those two, I will say to them now: I will never vote for them to return to office since they showed that they preferred to go along with breaking the law on the shear basis that the