El Rio Deal Culminates Into a Culprit Hearing for the City of Tucson and City Attorney Dennis P. McLaughlin

Last Friday, Judge Christopher Staring presided over a culprit hearing for Tucson's failure to disclose public records concerning the potential sale of  El Rio golf course to Grand Canyon University.   A culprit hearing allows a trial court to determine whether a party (The City of Tucson and City Attorney Dennis P. McLaughlin), as opposed to that party’s counsel (now Michael McCrory), is responsible for a disclosure or discovery violations.  The following summary was provided by Scott Egan, who also interviewed Plaintiff Cecilia Cruz and and Attorney Bill Risner after the hearing in the videos below: 

Not sure if my debut as a newscaster will win me any awards, but it was fun!

On the Albert Elias deposition on the GCU/El Rio Scam

In the lawsuit against the City of Tucson over access to public records regarding the sale of the El Rio public property to Grand Canyon University, a deposition was taken of Albert Elias, a long-term, top echelon entrenched bureaucrat in the City, who is supposedly being considered for appointment as the new city manager. His testimony, taken on October 14, 2014 and recorded by AuditAz (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS9YgBxDMZw) reveals many disturbing factors swirling around Mr. Elias.

To begin with, Mr. Elias clearly takes credit for being the lead person on the GCU/El Rio deal. He states [57:34] that he and Chris Kaselemis “were the main people responsible” in the attempted sale. When attorney Bill Risner reponds “but you are above him” (Kaselemis) he answers “Yes.”

This attempt of a giant rip-off of public resources alone should disqualify him from any important position in public service, but as we have learned, in the City of Tucson such behavior is not only tolerated but awarded. In fact it seems that every bureaucrat that was involved in this corrupt deal has been either promoted or received a salary increase by the Mayor and Council.

Besides two years of blatant attempts by the City to ignore and violate Arizona state public document laws by illegally withholding public information (from both the public, the press, and the courts), another aspect of highly questionable legality concerns the phony appraisal the City had conducted in order to sell the property at below market value -- a violation of Arizona’s Gift Clause. Mr. Elias, by his own testimony, was directly responsible and “concurred” with the appraisal [38:34] which directed the appraiser to value the 100+ acres -- with hundreds beautiful trees covered in lush grass, with water and irrigation service, sewer and electric systems, a club house with a restaurant and a brand new center (built by the Conquistors for a kids program) and owned by the people of Tucson and maintained by their taxes -- this parcel the City wanted to value as a “vacant” lot to sell on the cheap. A great deal for the developers. Not so good for every other taxpayer in Tucson.

Although Mr. Elias admits that he was in charge of the City Real Estate Division and this project in particular, he claims he did not give direct instructions to low-ball the value of the land (we may never know who did), but he testifies that he was “aware” that the appraisal was based on a “hypothetical” assumption that the land was vacant. He states that he supported the appraisal because it was based on “the highest and best use of the subject property as if vacant, for future development and mixed use.” [49:48]

To which Risner says: “Of course, it wasn’t vacant.”

“Correct.” responds Elias.

Besides these troubling statements, and the numerous attempts of the city attorney representative to prevent further questioning of how the phony appraisal was initiated, Mr. Elias also (if he is telling the truth in the deposition) has extreme ignorance of the basic rules on public records and the responsibilities public service workers have to the public they are supposed to serve. Or perhaps he is just lying.

For example, Risner asks Elias [103:10] if he is “aware that when there is a request, or a lawsuit relating to records, that a legal hold is placed on those records?”

Answer: “NO.”

Riser: “So you are not familiar with the public records rule in Arizona law that if there is a litigation, while that litigation is pending the records sought would be held and not destroyed.”

Answer: “No I’m not aware of that.”

In fact, Mr. Elias, who has worked for the City for many years and held many high positions in the organization, does not seem to be aware that any records should be preserved when an employee leaves their employment with the city. (Let us hope that when Mr. Elias does eventually retire, he destroys all of “his” city-owned files in an environmentally friendly way).

Finally, Mr. Elias’ comments go even past the point of feigned or legitimate ignorance when asked about any notes that he or his staff may have taken in their meetings here in Tucson or in Phoenix with officials from G.C.U. If one is to believe him, City of Tucson staff never take any notes.

As Risner asks [1:23] “Isn’t it common for staff to take notes at meetings?”

“No,” says Elias. “That is not common.”

That must save a lot of paper. (Of course, if they never use paper they also must be on the lookout for burglars that surreptitiously enter locked council offices and steal council members computers without setting off alarms or any trace of forceable entry).

There are certainly other amazing aspects of this fascinating interview, (like the fact that the City Parks Department, who have responsibility for El Rio, were never even consulted on the deal) and I would encourage anyone who has an hour and half to spend to actually watch the whole episode.  That may seem like a long time, but if Albert Elias is selected as our new City Manager life is going to be a long, slow, and very ugly period for Tucson -- no matter how long he may survive in the position.

There is my two cents, and then some.

Scott D. Egan Chief Correspondent for ... uh, what’s the name again?

Video courtesy of John Brakey

Scott Egan's interview with Bill Risner

Scott Egan's interview with Ceci Cruz

Here is the full video of last Friday's culprit hearing:

Sunnyside Recall Reawakens Struggle for Verifiable Transparent Elections in Pima County

J.T. Waldron

Richard Hernandez

When the growth lobby's powerful political machine is dependent upon the outcome of key elections conrolled by their own elections department, consistently fair and verifiable elections are impossible without legal intervention. Richard Hernandez, the Chairman of Sunnyside's effort to recall two school supervisors, understands this dilemma.

"For months, hundreds of residents in the Sunnyside Unified School District have worked to restore honesty and integrity to the Governing Board. The effort to recall SUSD Board president Louie Gonzales and Board member Bobby Garcia has already been a huge victory for the over 100 members of the recall committee and the students and teachers of the District.

We are exhausted from hurdling the many obstacles thrown in our way by corrupt-powers-that-be, but we will not rest until every ballot is counted in a fair and transparent manner."

A recent meeting at Pima County's Election Integrity Committee (EIC) offered a unique opportunity for Hernandez and recall candidates to catch a first hand glimpse of how the outcome of their campaign is bureaucratically managed by the county. Previous court cases have established legitimate concern over illegal early peeks at election results by the Elections Division. This information becomes a valuable tool for changing the outcome so Hernandez rightfully expressed the desire to have all the ballots in this small election counted on election day.

Once EIC member Mickey Duniho asked Elections Director Brad Nelson about possibly counting all the ballots on election day, Pima County loyalist Benny White had a little temper tantrum. He pounds his hand on the table to 'demand the floor' and proceeds to complain while dubiously citing jurisdictional issues barring the board from simply making an inquiry to Brad Nelson about his schedule. In this watershed moment, the peculiar behavior of Benny White reveals the infiltration of interests that contradict the majority's desire for transparency, especially when he later complains that "there might be an opposing view, there might not be an opposing view. I don't know but the opposing view party is not represented here." In other words, the County Attorney wasn't given the chance to develop some legal contrivance to justify this betrayal of public trust.

Any bureaucratic nuanced interpretation of rules or policy can be generated to hide key election processes from public oversight. If it wasn't such a threat to the democratic process, Pima County's rationale for skirting public scrutiny can be amusing at times. Who would have thought we would hear Brad Nelson, the head of elections in Pima County, try to explain how he's too busy to count ballots on election day?

In Sunnyside's district, two elected officials are the subject of a recall effort resulting from the reappointment of Superintendent Manuel Isquierdo. This appears to be making Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry a little uncomfortable. Citizens within the Sunnyside district have the political will to remove elected officials that continue to support the same corrupt bureaucratic head at Sunnyside. What if these uppity citizens realize that similar efforts should be aimed at PIma County's Board of Supervisors for their continued deferrence to Chuck Huckelberry?

Shortly after the election integrity meeting, Pima County realized that it's not a good idea to suggest that the elections department is too busy for such a small election day count. Pressure from Pima County Supervisor Ally Miller, Richard Hernandez, various recall candidates and election integrity advocates led to Pima County's 'magnanimous gesture' of counting all the ballots on election day.

While this one concesssion alleviates early counting concerns, adequate oversight is denied in key areas where the vote can still be manipulated. One suspicous location is Apollo Middle School, which has been designated as a 'ballot drop-off area'. Acting in conjunction with the political bureaucracy, Ann Rodriguez's office provides a handy excuse for barring election observers.

"The room that will be used is directly adjacent to space used daily by the students and we are required to maintain the secured environment of the educational institution."

Nothing beats the emotional appeal of children's safety when when it comes to eroding civil liberties. Those fighting corruption through the recall effort find the Apollo location suspect because Louie Gonzales, the Sunnyside Board President being recalled, has a son whose office is located inside Apollo Middle School.

Last Tuesday, Pima County Supervisor Ally Miller was denied her request to hold an emergency meeting over various concerns for the integrity of the Sunnyside election.   The rest of the elected supervisors publicly voted against further actions to protect the integrity of the Sunnyside election. We should question their wisdom as this vote was witnessed by those who succeeded with holding a recall election against their own district's corrupt elected officials.

In this non partisan election, Chuck Huckelberry ironically mandated that only representatives from the two major political parties can observe the tabulation. These two are EIC members Barbara Tellman and Benny White.  Surprised?  Perhaps another watershed moment surrounding the Sunnyside election is the decision to ban EIC member Mickey Duniho as an observer. Transparency advocate John Brakey requested from Brad Nelson that Duniho observe the tabulation process like he has in previous elections. Nelson replies "Absolutely not".  Although the bureaucracy seems to be leaning on the idea that Duniho's political affiliation is Independent, many recognize Duniho's exclusion as a retaliatory and vindictive decision against one committee member known for asking the right questions.

Like forever following an unhousebroken dog through an unfamiliar home, election integrity advocates have trailed the Pima Elections Division through every conceivable contrivance and opportunity to manipulate the count. This type of relentless oversight requires an abundance of tenacity and vigilance that few can afford to sustain for any significant length of time. Pima Elections can only be tamed through Attorney Bill Risner's legal pursuit of prospective relief through the courts. To get an idea of what this dog has left behind over the years, check out Bill Risner's Statement of Facts, which informs the court what integrity proponents intend to prove. Once evidence is presented through the discovery process, the court can proceed to clean house.

Friday, May 16 marks the eight-year aniversary of the RTA debacle. Despite Pima County spending milllions of dollars to prevent an adequate examination of those RTA ballots, we still have the opportunity to begin the process of disentangling corporate influence over key elections. Those RTA ballots are still at Iron Mountain and people are beginning to ask, "How many more temper tantrums can Benny White throw?"