(Return to Top) 

~ City Manager Review Scheduled

 On Tuesday, June 28th, in a special meeting starting at 4 PM, the City Council will review city manager David Richert’s performance.

Oh My, because of the heavy turnout by caring citizens who want David Richert fired immediately (over 300 signatures on a petition), Our apparently inept or possibly indebted Mayor has rescheduled the review to a later date. Could it be he and his Chamber Buddies hope the opposition will go away?  

                           NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!!!!

This review presents one of the few chances to express our impression of his actions, or lack thereof as city manager.

 The item: 

1. City Manager Evaluation

Request: Discuss, consider, and take possible action regarding the employment, assignment, appointment, promotion, demotion, dismissal, compensation and benefits, disciplining and/or resignation of the City Manager. 

To review: 

1.      He was the one who convinced the property owner at Scottsdale Road and Lone Mountain (and the city council) to bypass the General Plan and zoning by using a text amendment to change uses allowed on rural residential lots.

2.      He was the one to convince the property owner at Pima and Dynamite to try the same thing, though it backfired.

3.      He is the one who wants to break up the Desert Foothills character area by infusing commercial, office, and higher density residential uses in the Desert Foothills.

4.       He has allowed voter approved and subdivision mandated plant, shrub and tree lists to be altered totally changing the intent of the original controls which can greatly and adversely affect the taxpayer purchased McDowell Sonoran Preserve with a proliferation of non-native species.

 Some of the other reasons why he is the wrong person to be our city manager;

 His complete failure to recognize: 

• What makes Scottsdale better than other places.
• Scottsdale’s unique character & Character Area protections.
• His failure to preserve it and in fact he is destroying it.
• Scottsdale’s commitment to QUALITY development vs. quantity of it.
• Character controls voted by the voters are totally gone under Richert.
• Unique Scottsdale ordinances to control development, signs, noise, etc.
• That he encourages & helps developers bypass the controls.
• Scottsdale’s engaged citizens.
• With the city councils help, he is trying to disenfranchise citizens & mute their input.
• Scottsdale’s dependence on Tourism makes the city sustainable.
• That high end family values puts the city in a very favorable completive position to other cities in the valley and nation.
• We are losing our uniqueness that attracts tourists under Richert.
• Failure to bring the bar issue under control.
• His abject failure to provide the Council adequate UNBIASED information on all topics.
• His failure to adequately address the budget and issues with it.
• His failure to provide a General Plan update acceptable to residents.
• And ignored all the past visioning that defined Scottsdale’s future.
• That he totally fails to take responsibility for any action of his staff and managers

 If you agree he is the wrong man, I would encourage you to write or email the city council and say so As Soon As you can.

Perhaps with enough public comment, some will listen. Meeting attendance isn’t necessary as it is a special meeting which may be in executive session anyway (public can’t attend) to hide the results or any discussion.

If David Richert remains our city manager, we will be besieged with the same problems as Phoenix all too soon, and your taxes will go up to help pay for the development he encouraged in Phoenix (like City North and a lot of other dismal financial failures).  

You will also lose everything you moved to Scottsdale to enjoy as it is his intention to “develop” north Scottsdale and heavily overpopulate the southern portion of the city taking away the “family friendly” ambiance systematically directed and developed by Mayor Herb Drinkwater. 

Here is how you get in contact with them: 

 Or citycouncil@scottsdaleaz.gov

~Open Letter to Citizens 

Thank you all for showing the mayor and city council we will not watch Scottsdale go quietly into the night!  We have gathered (thank you Howard!) over 300 signatures, it will be included in the Mayor and Council members’ agenda packet for Tuesday. 

Now for the more serious part....

Sometime in August, the City Manager, David Richert, will be evaluated by the city council.   

The agenda reads:

Request: Discuss, consider, and take possible action regarding the employment, assignment, appointment, promotion, demotion, dismissal, compensation and benefits, disciplining and/or resignation of the City Manager. 

WE ARE asking any and all citizens of Scottsdale sympathetic to the cause of keeping our city out of the hands of big developers, who are using the current economic downturn to systematically change the face of Scottsdale from wide open spaces and the western laid back lifestyle that has been the hallmark of our city,  into an urban jungle, with density and height, not just in downtown, but throughout the city, led by the former Phoenix City Manager David Richert, now the leader in transforming Scottsdale into a huge cash cow with the City Council Kow-Towing to his every whim and wish,

We are asking for the termination of Richert's contract or his resignation immediately. Between his $190,000 salary from Scottsdale and his "retirement package" from Phoenix, this guy is reportedly knocking down close to a MILLION dollars a year. That's what we call serious Double Dipping!!!

For more info, contact guyrphillips@gmail.com

Editors Note: Richert's contract allows for only 90 days pay if he is terminated which is one Hell of a lot cheaper that what he's currently costing this city on a monthly basis as well how he is single handedly destroying the city with the help of an out of touch and apparently Chamber or Bar Owner controlled Mayor and City Council !!

~ Now about Mr. David (Mr. Phoenix) Richert….

Happy Birthday!!!! The Downtown Infill Incentive District is one year old on July 7 under city manager (?) David Richert. It is the worst thing to happen to the Southern Scottsdale Community Planning Area, but staff refuses to discuss it as does Richert. Could it be because that’s the way Phoenix did it?

Now let's see, who could have pushed for the IID to be created? What Planning Department administrator rushed it through just barely involving the community, like they do everything else since Dolan and Richert? Could that have been Connie Padian helped by City Manager David Richert, or does Richert just give carte blanc approval without knowing what’s going on?

What Planning Department administrator hates interacting with the public and takes everything personally? Why does the Planning Department only respond to the Planning Department and DRB and no other boards and commissions?

Why did developers know long before the residents that an infill incentive district ordinance was being created?

Isn’t it the responsibility of the City Manager to know everything that’s going on in the city and make sure the public is fully informed?

Do ANY department heads or managers report to Richert with problems or does he just blow them off telling them to do what they think is best and sit back enjoying his double-dip salaries to the tune of reportedly almost ^$1,000,000 per year of which ^$190,000+ comes from Scottsdale taxpayers as he apparently did with all city decisions of late?

Under what rock or in whose pocket has the city council been all this time?

Why has the whole chapter on Character and Design in the Downtown Plan been removed? When you read through the Downtown Plan and the Southern Scottsdale Community Area Plan, the references to buffering and transitioning call for such to be "within" the character area, not between character areas, what’s with that?

Why would we want to allow David (Mr. Phoenix) Richert to continue to double dip salaries and not take responsibility for his non-actions at our expense?

It’s time the Council got come cajones and some backbone and threw Richert and all his cronies out replacing him with Brent Stockwell who knows the city well and really cares about us. 

~Lt. Stauffer: Conflict of Interest??

It would appear from all appearances, websites, his own website, and other political and city, county and State information available, that Lieutenant Mike Stauffer of the Scottsdale City Police Department, who is one of the Commanders of the Downtown “Entertainment District”, is very conflicted.

Why has Lt. Stauffer refused to step down or take a leave from his duties with the Scottsdale PD when he is openly and notoriously running as a candidate for Maricopa County Sheriff to unseat Sheriff Joe Arpio?

Why has the Scottsdale Police Department allowed Lt. Stauffer to stay active in this situation when ALL OTHER candidates for office statewide either have to resign their positions or take leaves of absence until they are either elected or the campaign is over? Wouldn’t that be the proper, politically correct, and ethical thing for Lt. Stauffer to do?

Why has Stauffer filed Class 5 Felony charges against long time downtown resident and business owner Bill Crawford when all information released by Crawford is public record, correct (no more injurious has Stauffer’s own websites), and is in fact provable (All internet files are kept and stored forever and made legally available under court order from the provider)?

Is Lt. Stauffer trying to bury his foibles and ignorance by trying for even more media attention through apparent untruths, innuendo, and misstatements? He’ll certainly get it here at the Scottsdale Activist but will he see what he wants to see in print here?

Why would Stauffer get so irritated over his home address being made public when he made it public himself on Google and other websites with the election information website and party for Ben Quayle held at Stauffer’s home?  It would appear that Lt. Stauffer only wants thing his way when it’s to his benefit so wouldn’t you say that’s true by all evidence provided?

Public information is PUBLIC INFORMATION no matter who you are. If your lack of understanding of “public information” and ignorance or laziness causes you problems, isn’t that YOUR problem that you created yourself?

If Stauffer is so intelligent about law enforcement and other issues, why hasn’t he redacted all of his personal information from all applicable information sites? Most all in Law Enforcement have done so and the help necessary to achieve said redactions are freely offered by all law enforcement agencies, county, and city legal departments. In searching, we found a number of sites with all of his personal information because it is deemed PUBLIC INFORMATION!!

Why has Stauffer allowed such a nasty mess to happen in the Downtown area if he, in fact, is in charge of the “Entertainment District” district which the citizens and voters call the Bar district?

How can Stauffer be quoted as saying “there is no noise problem in the area” when it is very apparent to all residents and business owners in the area that there is a serious problem?

We think Laurie Roberts column based on an on-site visit to the "Bar District" really cut his statement to ribbons as well as those of the Bar District owners and the City Council. Click the link below:

http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/LaurieRoberts/132954

Could it be that someone has Lt. Stauffer in their pocket so to speak? It has happened in other departments don’t you know? 

Why haven’t the obvious drunks found sleeping or passed out on public property, with in plain sight of the public, or in vehicles, been arrested for numerous reasons?

Go to Lt. Stauffer’s PUBLIC election website and other sites for more on this “Public Servant”: 

http://www.votestauffer.com/Stauffer2012/Home.html  

http://www.whitepages.com/name/Michael-J-Stauffer/Cave-Creek-AZ/4b0ybm7?site_id=10583 

You can go to Google and a slew of PUBLIC information on Lt. Mike Stauffer is readily available without charge.  

What do you suppose you could get if you paid a private investigator to do some research???

Editors Note: If Lt. Stauffer wants to sit down with the Editorial staff of the Scottsdale Activist to make his case on the record, all he has to do is contact us at editor@scottsdaleactivist.com .

 (Return to Top) 

Undersigned Citizens Demand City Council Terminate Richert’s Contract

We, Scottsdale residents, voters, and business owners, having witnessed numerous General Plan guideline infractions, and recognizing Mr. Richert's complete lack of understanding or willful disregard of Scottsdale's high development standards and his demonstrated indifference to the well-being of Scottsdale residents, find him unsuitable to continue as the Scottsdale City Manager. 

Mr. Richert’s pursuit of greater height and density development throughout Scottsdale directed toward more population, commercialization and urban growth is the antithesis to Scottsdale's values and is a danger to Scottsdale maintaining its premier international marquee. 

Since he has promoted such unconscionable development projects and purposely directed staff to abandon the development standards that created Scottsdale’s uniqueness, and refuses to take responsibility for the actions of his subordinates,

We Do Hereby demand the Scottsdale City Council terminate Mr. Richerts employment contract and pursue a nationwide search for a city manager whose ideals are in tune with the established high values of Scottsdale residents and taxpayers.

    The basis for his immediate termination includes:

1.     His promotion and enactment of the Infill Incentive District, which since its implementation has resulted in the wholesale abandoning of the city zoning code and  the General Plan, coupled with allowing lot splits to subjugate the rights and legal protests of adjoining property owners;

2.     His actions on Waterfront and Blue Sky have brought about 20 more applications for height and density rezoning which is not compatible with Scottsdale's General Plan and is in conflict with our laid back easy going western atmosphere that makes it a tourist destination;

3.     Manipulating the process and the staff to pervert the 2012 General Plan to accommodate unsuitable development and reduce restrictions for rezoning height and density throughout Scottsdale;

4.     Fronting for special interest groups in promoting policies for urban height, density, light rail, and subsidized housing;

5.     Ignoring and avoiding citizen involvement, the cornerstone of Scottsdale, by not engaging in citizen meetings but rather directing staff to speak on his behalf.

6.     Exponentially increasing the bars and nightlife on the outskirts of downtown Scottsdale, despite the overwhelming response by local neighborhoods to curtail the noise, litter, and behavior of its patrons.

So say We the undersigned: 

  Name                                        Address                                             Zip Code                  Date

 This Petition can be signed by simply printing your name etc. without a signature and sent to the city council at  citycouncil@scottsdaleaz.gov  as soon as possible.

(Return to Top) 

~Employee Survey Buried?

 We just got wind from one of our many inside sources that the city management (?) ran or is running a survey of employee satisfaction with the city management and working conditions but are apparently refusing to release it because of the very damning and unfriendly results derived from said survey.

 www.n-r-c.com/survey/scottsdalenes.htm

When you bring up the survey, click through the many pages (don’t answer any questions) and you will note that there are absolutely NO questions about the competence, organizational abilities, leadership abilities, or acceptable professional relationships with their employees.

It should be stated here that the instructions, in our estimation, are very clear and apparently very discriminatory in nature to wit:

“This survey is to be completed by the City of Scottsdale employee who received an invitation. Your responses will be kept anonymous and reported in group form only.”

·       What would you make of such a statement and the city’s reluctance to release the results of such a revealing survey?

·       How many employees were surveyed and what were the criteria for being included in the survey?

·       How can it be said that it is an anonymous survey when it is clearly calculated by Group as stated in the instructions?

·       Were ALL city employees included or was it just those whom management felt would respond favorably?

·       Why weren’t there specific questions about each management person included in the survey?

·       Wouldn’t the survey been much more revealing as to the ability of each management team member to properly manage a department and communicate with their charges? Corporate America always asks such questions in their surveys, that’s how they keep their management team on their toes.

·       Do you feel that the city will ever publicly release all the information including but not limited to the number of employees surveyed, the time frame, who administered the survey, and how were the employees protected and allowed to remain anonymous?

Could it be that the city council needs to clean house by replacing every single management person brought on board by Jan Dolan and David “Mr. Phoenix” Richert, starting with Mr. Richert, unless ALL of their subordinates and employees fully approve of their management style and demeanor through the results of an independent, secret evaluation?

Isn’t it time the City Council woke up and smelled the roses instead of ignorantly, blissfully, and blindly going along with everything that these management (?) people suggest?

Could it be that many are not even qualified to hold the positions they hold and it can be proved if necessary, especially those brought on board or promoted by Jan Dolan and David Richert?

Wake up City Council and Mayor and do the job we elected you to do!!

(Return to Top) 

The residents of Southern Scottsdale started pressing our City Council for a long range plan in 2003 that would provide guidelines for developers as Scottsdale was forced to turn to our mature Southern neighborhoods for economic revitalization and growth. We were, are, running out of open developable land and that forces the city to look to "infill development" and property assemblage.

After lobbying the City Council for many years they finally voted to approve 6 planning areas down from 24 character areas approved in 2000 and included in the General Plan. What we were supposed to be doing over the last 10 years was creating "character areas" through out the city. We never came close to that goal.

Of the six planning areas identified, so far the Downtown, the Airpark and the southern neighborhoods from Indian Bend Road to McKellips Road have now been approved.

The Southern Scottsdale Community Area Plan saw participation by over 400 residents at planning meetings from SkySong to the Kerry Cultural Center and points in between. Meetings, trolley rides, building charettes and online surveys evolved into a planning tool that would protect single family residential neighborhoods and still allow opportunities for economic revitalization.

In a 7-0 vote the SSCAP was approved. Finally, after 7 years the residents voices were honored.

Now all that we have to figure out is how to address working cooperatively with the Downtown Area Plan and those folks because the Downtown is smack in the middle of the SSCAP. The job is not quite finished.

(Return to Top) 

Remember that project called Riverwalk? The 1200(+/-) luxury apartment project at Camelback and Scottsdale Roads????? Well, it is now called "Blue Sky." Don't ask why, because we don't know why………..

Once again it was continued from the City Council agenda on October 26th. We don't understand why this project is even before Council right now because everything about it is in a state of flux and it is totally different than originally approved(?).

The site plan is not the same as that approved by staff when the project first stated through the process. What went before the Planning Commission the first time changed by the time the project returned to that body after being continued a couple of time.

What went to Council the first time this project was scheduled to be heard by them is not what was scheduled to be heard on the 26th..........

.......OH!!!! And what was presented to the community for input and discussion is nothing like what was scheduled to be heard on the 26th.

Councilmen Littlefield and McCullagh and Councilwoman Nelssen nailed it when they said the whole project should go back through the whole planning process, especially the public presentation and hearing process, so that residents would have confidence and trust in what the City was being asked to do by Gray Development.

This is a precedent setting project for that already congested intersection of our Downtown. It needs to be understood correctly.

Where is the all knowing city manager? Where is the city attorney on this project and procedure? Looks like Bruce Washburn needs to be replaced with someone who knows the laws and rules which control this city.

(Return to Top) 

On October 26th, the City Council also approved the Airpark Planning Area guidelines. Now that is a tricky thing to do. It passed with a 5-2 vote, because there was disagreement regarding the inclusion of residential in a mixed use area to the west and slightly north of the actual Airpark.

Even though the Planning Commission approved the APA with that residential included, several knowledgeable folks involved with aviation spoke at the October 26th City Council meeting in opposition to residential in that Scottsdale Road and 73rd Street corridor. Attention was drawn to future problems with noise and safety issues as the Airpark continues to be our fastest growing economic driver. The 5-2 vote saw Councilwomen Klapp and Borowsky opposing the removal of the residential element in that area.

(Return to Top) 

We are coming to the end of a wild and notoriously contentious Scottsdale election period where it’s totally obvious to everyone that Southwest Ambulance (and their many integrated companies and corporations) is trying to "buy" positions (majority votes) on the Scottsdale City Council.

Is what they’re doing Legal? Technically, yes.

Is what they’re doing Ethical? Hell no.

Would someone please explain how can you print a mailer and other stuff which looks EXACTLY like those the candidates sent out (with the disclaimer in fine print as the only difference) without talking to them, their representatives, or someone connected to the candidates or their campaigns?? Get real here folks, we didn’t just fall off the melon truck yesterday!!!

The REAL question is will any of the three (3) candidates who have obviously received direct benefit of the money, recuse themselves from voting on any proposed contract that is presented to the city council for consideration by Southwest Ambulance or any subsidiary to their company including any new corporation(s) or companies that they might come up with to circumvent (illegally dodge) the ethics codes of the Feds, state, county and local city organizations, laws and ordinances? We think legally and ethically they should, but knowing this crowd, we doubt it seriously.

We’re quite sure that none of these candidates will write said Manifesto because they are already on the hook so to speak with Southwest Ambulance. We’ll happily apologize if they prove us wrong by each delivering said Manifesto exactly as stated above.

Should any of the 3 candidates above be elected, and then fail to recuse themselves as stated above, we will guarantee that well financed formal Ethics charge(s) will be filed against each candidate that fails to recuse themselves as well as the City Attorney and all Deputies and Assistants thereto, the city legal department, as well as any others within the city government who try to defend the unethical position of the three (3) candidates who received the indirect but specific funding. The suit will include financial fines payable back to the taxpayers of Scottsdale in kind as well as their immediate removal from the city council for illegal and unethical actions.