The Pima County Supervisors moved to deny a request by Supervisor Ally Miller to increase transparency at yesterday’s Board meeting. The Board voted 3-1 against the proposal to post videos of the votes by the supervisors on the County’s website.
Supervisor Ray Carroll objected on the grounds that Pima County is “transparent enough.” Carroll asked staff at the meeting what the current video archive availability is for the public, and he was advised that the videos, which are made at taxpayer expense each week, are only available to County employees on the County’s internet, and at the main library downtown.
The public can only obtain copies of the meetings through the County, and they cannot be delivered to constituents through electronic devices such as email.
Miller sought the advice of website technicians before making the proposal to ensure that the process would not be onerous or costly for the County.
For taxpayers, it was a false claim made by Carroll about his vote on a controversial measure that led to their hope that the supervisors would publish for public viewing their votes. Carroll had made the claim in a call into a local radio show that he had leaned into the microphone to cast his vote when in fact, he said nothing at all.
According to County insiders, Carroll had tried to slip out of the room to avoid voting on the matter but returned too quickly and was forced to go on the record in opposition. Miller called for a roll call vote. Carroll, in an agitated tone, boomed into the microphone, “No, I think there is plenty of access currently, thank you.” Miller told her fellow supervisors, “This is a simple fix, and quite frankly, we are not transparent.”
Miller has heard from taxpayers who have grown weary from the lack of transparency in the County and the misinformation continually provided by the County’s large public relations team.
The importance of video review of votes was brought home at yesterday’s meeting. A controversial no bid contract, which was awarded to a donor of Supervisors Richard Elias and Ramon Valadez, has sparked many questions and concerns about the County’s spending practices and the transparency of spending.
During the last election cycle, a Phoenix businessman, Gabe Loyola, co-sponsored a campaign event with former Supervisor Dan Eckstrom on August 21, for the two supervisors. Loyola also made contributions of $400 to each of their campaigns.
Loyola’s company was awarded a no bid contract back in February 2013, but the County staff did not bother to have it ratified by the Board until the August 19 Board meeting.
Miller had asked to pull the Loyola contract which had been placed inside the consent item. Miller asked how the $40,000 contract was awarded and noted that many Pima County businesses would have liked to have had an opportunity to try to compete for the work.
The contract was not bid competitively, and staff claimed that Loyola had “particular expertise” in state and federal programs, adding that they have “been very useful to us.” Staff claimed there was no one in Pima County with this particular expertise. They did not say how they knew that or whether there was any attempt to find someone in Southern Arizona with the “particular expertise.”
Staff advised the supervisors that they “had no good explanation” for their delay in bringing the contract for ratification.
A video was shown of the August 19 meeting which showed that Miller had clearly requested the item be removed from the Consent Agenda. In the video, Elias said he was “not going to piddle about this and will move the Consent Agenda as amended.” Supervisor Bronson quickly seconded the motion, and Miller’s request was ignored.
Now, the supervisors are claiming that Miller’s request was denied and was voted on as part of the Consent Agenda. In the past, a request by a supervisor to remove an item has been considered an official motion and is honored as such. Now, Valadez and the others are claiming that Miller had to make an official motion to remove the contract from the Consent Agenda.
After the video was shown, Miller told her fellow supervisors, “I would just like to point out that I did pull that item and asked for a separate vote the way we have done it all year, and if we act in a way that is not objected to, that becomes the rule. I would also like to point out that the meetings have been revised by the Clerk of the Board to reflect the other items I had on there and I would like to go on the record that I feel we did not vote on this contract, it was pulled as a separate item, Richard interrupted me before I could make the motion and so the motion was never made to vote on this contract. I would move to approve these meeting minutes as the Clerk has amended them with the following amendment regarding the Gabe Loyola contract which was item one on the Consent. I would like to go on the record as voting “no” on this contract.”
Miller pointed out to Valadez that she specifically asked him if she needed to make and motion, and he told her that she did not. “Every meeting it’s a different rule, “ Miller told Valadez. “Why is everyone fighting putting this up for a vote?” asked Miller. Valadez denied Miller’s version of events, to which Miller said, “Okay, everyone can go to my website and see where the rules change every week.”
Elias then said he would support a re-vote of the contract. Carroll asked to see the film again. As a result of the replay, Miller once again raised the question as to how was Loyola working a contract that had not been approved by the Board.
The County’s attorney then went into a convoluted explanation of what he thought the Board could do and had done.
After Valadez tried to figure out what the attorney had said with little success, the supervisors settled on placing an item on the October 15 meeting agenda.
The County’s attorney remained confused throughout the discussion of the approval of the minutes. The issue of the minutes, as well as the ratification of the now 8-month-old contract, will be addressed again by the Board at the October 15 meeting.