 |
EMIL
FRANZI |
A roundup of party registration, OV executive sessions and a need for a lieutenant governorSeptember 12, 2007 |
Clarification on a prior
column: I pointed out the difficulty for some voters
in the upcoming presidential primary who had failed
to enter a party choice and were automatically
declared “NOP” for no organized party. GOP officials
told me their primary was closed to those not
registered Republican, which is correct, but I
neglected to state that AZ presidential primaries
require partisan registration for ALL parties.
Pick a party The problem I discussed was a process that assumes all registrants leaving the party choice space blank meant to. Some didn’t and will be unable to vote in February. One ultimate solution is to allow everybody not registered in a party vote in the presidential primary of their choice on Election Day as we now do for other offices. District 26 State Rep. Lena Saradnik announced she supports that but it requires a special legislative session to accomplish it in time for the 2008 presidential effort. Saradnik states she wants all non-partisans to have a chance to participate. They can now. They simply pick which party primary they want to vote in and register accordingly within 30 days of the election instead of picking one on election day. Not exactly difficult nor unreasonable. All voters should check their voter registration card for accuracy and particularly their party designation. If you misplaced it or never got one, call your local county recorder for a replacement. Oro Valley Town Council After numerous shots at the Oro Valley Town Council for the corporate welfare granted developers for shopping centers that would’ve gotten built anyway, it’s fair that I compliment all members of the current council, except Mayor Loomis, for finally passing a policy that hopefully will end these handouts of taxpayer money. Councilman Gillaspie responded recently by stating he was always opposed to the Vestar deal, but was counseled by town attorneys that Vestar could sue the town for the $23 million long-term subsidy that was part of the contract the town approved. Which again illustrates the problem with the state’s Open Meetings Law. Governmental bodies may go into executive sessions to get “legal advice” and no member may discuss what they did. The net result is more decisions made in private and far worse than what occurred before the law was passed. The intent of the provision was to allow governments to discuss portions of ongoing case with their attorneys over such delicate items as settlement offers. There is no good reason for all legal advice to be held secret. You don’t need to be a trial lawyer to know that the town may theoretically have been liable for the $23 million involved, but it’s doubtful the developer would’ve collected even a part of it. Regardless, the public had a right to know about the options under discussion. While they shouldn’t have to discuss this practice again in public or private, the unnecessary secrecy will no doubt continue. Lieutenant Governor Arizona has no lieutenant governor. The secretary of state is next in line, and we’ve had several recent governors come to us that way. There are provisions in most state constitutions defining when the “take over” provision takes effect. This has led to many minor confrontations, particularly when the two officials are from different parties. Democrat Gov. Janet Napolitano recently left the state for several days leaving certain prerogatives in the hands of Republican Secretary of State Jan Brewer. The governor’s staff thought differently, a natural phenomenon, but the argument they used was rather unique. They claimed the state constitution was no longer relevant because technology had superceded it! We have faxes and cell phones now, so it isn’t necessary for the SOS to become acting governor. Whoa! Didn’t we have telephones and telegraphs back in 1912 when that constitution was written? Does this argument postulate a new theory of constitutional law? Maybe the governor’s staff just concurs with the old Tammany Hall theory: “What’s the constitution between friends?”
|
BUT WATCH WHAT YOU SAY! |
|
|
|||
