Last weeks’ Pima County Board of Supervisors meeting was pedestrian, in that it contained the same chaos it usually does. And then came one simple request from Supervisor Miller that sent the meeting into chaos. Read about that, and about the ongoing contributions of the County to United Way of Tucson to pay for fundraisers, both in yesterday’s Arizona Daily Independent. Today, we expose the trickery the Huckelberry-Bronson waste machine uses to (attempt to) hide their crimes from you:
The Consent Calendar
As per usual, Chair Bronson’s agenda for the meeting lumped bloody everything under the sun into the “consent calendar.” For the benefit of those either unfamiliar with Robert’s Rules of Order or those who incorrectly assume that the practice of the Pima County Board is acceptable and standard–that is, for the benefit of normal people–the consent calendar or consent agenda is a parliamentary procedure for the expeditious treatment of routine, simple, non-controversial items and committee reports. In other words, the consent calendar serves to group the commonplace, repeating business of a board; it is not a cloak for the concealment of government malfeasance. The Pima County Board of Supervisors, however, frequently attempts to use the consent calendar to blast through the entirety of a meeting in a handful of votes, with no daylight shone upon their wastefulness.
Recognize the pervasive attitude of the Board–delineated unmistakably by party–that the taxpaying public need not participate in governance. As I predicted last week, Bronson, with the collusion of her fellow Board Democrats, voted against Supervisor Miller’s proposal to hold one meeting each month in the evening. This from the same masters of malfeasance who try to pass each meeting’s business–controvertible or not–without debate or justification to you and me, the worthless scum class off of whose largesse these despicable bureaucrats subsist. They do not give a damn about us.
Supervisor Miller makes a practice of “dividing the question,” pulling from the consent calendar the matters of concern and the matters for which the public deserves a clear rationale. The formula is as follows: Supervisor Miller divides the question; the Board passes the remaining items on the consent calendar; Supervisor Miller brings up her concerns about each remaining item individually; Supervisor Christy sometimes adds to Supervisor Miller’s comments–but only if he can add value to the conversation, not simply to hear himself talk; Supervisor Elias blathers, blusters, and bloviates, with flagrant derision toward his minority colleagues Miller and Christy (but especially Miller); Chair Bronson “calls the question,” forcing the vote; the item passes on party lines with the Democrats of the Board smugly ramming another piece of pork right up the taxpayers’…ahem…noses, right.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
Several items passed in such a manner last week:
- Miller moved to postpone a vote on Rio Nuevo spending that was in the consent calendar on the basis of unanswered, and pertinent, questions.
By party lines, the delay failed and the item passed.
Nearly $30 million remains missing, but the County continues its unquestioning support of Rio Nuevo.
- Miller inquired about $100,000 over five years for utilities and a lease of $1.00 per year of County facilities to the University of Arizona’s Garden Kitchen program.
Surprisingly, Elias deigned to move that the Board continue–meaning postpone–this vote.
He couldn’t resist a jab at Miller when she requested an opinion from legal counsel. That maneuver of his was demeaning.
- Supervisor Christy asked to continue a spending item germane to his district.
Elias quickly stung him: “So you haven’t studied it?”
Elias clearly hadn’t studied the meeting schedule he blindly passed in the same meeting; he accepts anything his Democrat cohorts bring to a vote, belying a plenary and hubristic ignorance of the needs of his constituency.
Christy simply wanted additional time to explore more deeply the workings of the District he has served for only a few weeks.
Leave it to Richard Elias to fight a reasonable request simply to belittle a Republican.
Bronson and Elias objected to continuation, but Supervisor Valadez allowed reason to win out, so the motion to continue passed.
During that last item, Miller and Bronson exchanged words. Elias dithered for a time, derailing the proceeding. Because of the time that had elapsed, Miller offered to second the motion after a second had already been heard. Bronson responded that “It’s already been seconded.” Miller replied, “Okay, calm down.” Bronson took off the gloves: “Would you listen?” Perhaps they were joshing each other, but to the public, it looked to be the acrimony that separates the Democrat majority from the Republican minority.
Master Agreements
More and more, the County seems to sweep spending under the rug using “master agreements,” open-ended contracts by which the county curtails future negotiations with specific partners through common general terms in the master. Elsewhere, this would be standard practice; in Pima County, these agreements run rife with abuse to hide spending from public view.
- One item would have re-extended an “indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity job order” for another year and another $2 million; a one-year agreement for $2.5 million would become a three-year agreement for $8.5, more than four times (not three times) the original value.
Miller correctly noted no “not to exceed” clause in this agreement, no limit to its total growth.
Huckelberry stated there was “nothing magical” about these agreements. Then how does so much money disappear?
Bronson hid behind State statute allowing these agreements, called the question, and passed the spending on party lines.
- Miller then questioned an increase to $12 million of an agreement not to exceed $5 million.
Astonishingly, a bureaucrat from the requesting department read a prepared statement in response to Miller’s impromptu question!
The department would have known ahead of time that such a massive increase–40% added to the value year-over-year–would raise eyebrows. The taxpayers deserve a rebidding of such a significant spend.
The County bureaucracy disagreed and passed the motion.
- Bronson revealed her foaming contempt for her taxpaying constituency when Miller simply requested detail on another master agreement’s specific projects, detail that Huckelberry omitted from the consent calendar attachments.
Bronson chided Miller for not requesting the information previously. However, the County published the lengthy agenda the Friday before the Tuesday meeting, leaving little time to study and request information.
Huckelberry named the projects and the measure passed unanimously.
Clearly, though, the Democrat majority is content to pass whatever comes to a vote without appropriate study.
But Wait, there’s More
The County’s Ad-Hoc Committee on Continuing Government Waste had more gems to ram through:
- In 2015, Pima County voters wisely defeated an entire slate of bonds that Huck & Co. threw at them.
Over 66% of voters rejected Proposition 427, “Tourism Promotion,” more than a quarter of which was to pay for renovation of the old courthouse and a January 8th memorial within it.
That’s for tourism.
No, seriously.
The item came to vote to make Huckelberry the administrator of donations and naming rights for the memorial; this was a blatant end-run to give Chuck power to benefit his cronies, since the voters didn’t give him that power by passing the bond.
Christy correctly rebuked Elias for yet another verbose rant; Elias insinuated that the voters do not know what they want, since they rejected bonds for road improvements. His galling statement:
“Well, I was just gonna mention that during that same 2015 bond election, [the voters] voted against the transportation package, so apparently they didn’t want their roads improved, either.”
Miller reminded Elias that the voters expect the County to keep its promises with existing funding sources.
Bronson called the question, but stalled the vote to pander to her base by thanking everyone involved in the private fundraising for the memorial.
The item passed 4-1, imbuing Huckelberry with even more authority.
- The Board engaged in protracted debate over a resolution regarding cross-border trade.
Christy derided it as a “transparent swipe at President Trump.”
Again, it passed by party lines and the Board minority got trampled.
Sometimes they hide behind parliamentary procedure, sometimes by layers of contracts, but Elias, Valadez, Bronson, and Huckelberry are not nearly as ignorant to the needs of the community they serve as it might seem; in reality, they know well what they do, and why they do so. It’s the Huckelberry way, so it must be the Pima County way. Guess that’s why they voted to pay him the big bucks, and why Pima County remains one of the poorest in the nation.