Dear Fellow Resident of Tucson:
BOG NEWS
June 2023
This is the email you may have been warned about by Ward 1 council member Lane Santa Cruz!
THANK YOU!
A huge THANK YOU to the many folks who came out for the musical memorial for our brother Ray (Monchi) Armstrong. Sponsored by the Barrio Hollywood Neighborhood Association at the El Rio Golf Course — two entities he truly loved and supported. It was a particularly touching event.
A special shout out to Raul Perez who helped coordinate the musicians (i.e. herd chickens), and to Monchi’s family and many friends.
A special thanks to all the performers, most of whom are regulars at Hollywood’s First Friday Open Mics, and in particular the heart-warming contribution by Bobby Ronstadt, who sang a number of original songs written by Ray Armstrong.
We hope that the First Friday Open Mics will continue at El Rio after our regularly scheduled July break. Thank you again fellow Tucsonans; you make us proud to live in the Ol’ Pueblo.
See you in August!
If a loyal subject of Her Majesty’s P.C. Kingdom, you are discouraged from considering any other perspective but what has been fed to you by your masters, and you should resolutely reject the temptation to further your understanding of what is happening in the City of Tucson by reading Bog News or any other dangerously independent source of information.
George Orwell once said: ”If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” But what did he know? Whatever you do, do not read the attached Bog News newsletter, no matter how tempted you might be to see what the hubbub is all about.
Remember: ignorance is bliss. You are not anti-bliss now, are ya? Don’t read the following! Don’t you know everything you need to know already? Facts are only confusing! Resist the lure of being educated by another perspective! Don’t read any more!!! Delete! Fast Forward!
Scott D. Egan (the Bogman)
Editor, Bog News
Barrio Hollywood, Tucson
IS THE PUBLIC’S RIGHT TO KNOW SOMETHING “SHADY?”
It started out as a simple public records request for information on the City of Tucson’s Ward 1 budget. Bog News is always on the lookout for information that might be of interest to the neighborhood and community activists who make up the hundreds of involved residents on our mailing list, and we are so lucky that our committed readers submit information to us for our review to share with you — important issues that are often ignored by the local news media who can barely hold on to their already depleted workforce, as witnessed by the recent layoff of 1/4 of Az Daily Star reporters (HERE). When was the last time anyone from the news media looked at the budgets of local politicos?
I received credible information about the expenses incurred by council member Lane Santa Cruz (LSC), claiming she has over-spent her the Ward 1 budget every year since elected almost four years ago, which indicated some of the reasons why her expenditures were so high.
My public records request asked for information about Ward 1’s payment of 12 airline tickets for flights to Philadelphia at a cost of over $8,000 along with another $7,000+ for hotel rooms at the “Sheraton Philadelphia” in the final months of 2022.
Likewise, In April/May of this year, there are nine items for over $5,000 for “United” hotel expenses, along with other questionable costs, that should — but will never — be investigated.
Who are these individuals being paid with city taxpayer dollars to travel across the country by the city, and for what reason?
Council member Lane Santa Cruz using her City of Tucson website and resources to attack her political opponents.
ILLEGAL AND SHADY! Whatever the reasons turn out to be, do you think taxpayers like you have a right to know how your dollars are being spent? If not, “delete and fast forward” as Willie says!
EVEN WILLIE IS TELLING YOU TO DELETE THIS EMAIL!
Delete and Fast-Forward by Willie Nelson
Delete and fast-forward, my friend
The wars are all over and nobody wins
But don’t worry too much, just drive you crazy, my friend
So delete and fast-forward, my friend.
Delete and fast-forward, my son
The elections are over and nobody won
You think it’s all endin’ but it’s just settin’ in
So delete and fast-forward, my friend.
Delete and fast-forward again
It’s just one big circle and it’s beginning to end
What’s next was now and what’s now is now again
So delete and fast-forward again.
Delete and fast-forward the news
The truth is the truth, but believe what you choose
When we blow the whole world back to where it began
Just delete and fast-forward again.
Delete and fast-forward again
It’s just one big circle and it’s beginning to end
What’s next was now, what’s now is now again
And so delete and fast-forward again.
Had a chance to be brilliant and we blew it again
So delete and fast-forward, my friend
Delete and fast-forward again.
The responses to my requests for information from the City Clerk and the City Attorney were obfuscation, diversion, and delay — as expected. But the unhinged response by the council member was not only factually wrong, but potentially illegal. Using her official city newsletter she claimed that “candidates and their supporters lacking a strong community base may resort to filing a public records request” and stating that she wants to “make y’all aware that the campaign team for the opposing candidate running for Ward 1 chose to go this route…”
In furtherance of her attack on her political rivals, LSC asserts that “email lists don’t translate into strong community connections or relationships.” She also labeled an appropriate public records request “a legal but shady campaign tactic.”
LSC may or may not be correct that email lists don’t translate into community connections. Her office’s unrelenting troll of emails, tweets, and facebook self promotions are clearly sent out with the specific purpose of trying to use them to “translate into community support” for her own election. Whether she is successful in employing what she describes as a “shady tactic” — i.e., using city emails for political purposes — will be determined by Ward 1 Democrats (and Independents) who vote in the Democratic Primary Election on and before August the 1st. (Independents need to request a Democratic ballot).
That said, LSC is wrong that the public records request came from any campaign: they came from me ALONE — and not from any candidate or campaign.
Full disclosure: I supported Miguel Ortega when he ran for the same office 4 years ago and am doing so again now for the Democratic Primary. I have known Miguel for many years and he has been a strong supporter of Westside issues: opposing the sale of over 100 acres of El Rio urban green space for private development, coordinating Barrio Hollywood’s Fiesta Grande, fighting against gerrymandered redistricting plans to dilute the unity of Westside barrios (lead by LSC, by the way). I am hoping to donate the full $500 individual limit to his campaign when my next social security check arrives and I will do everything I can to depose LSC from her seat for many reasons articulated in Bog News. Those who wish to support a candidate who will represent ALL the people and interested in helping Miguel can make their own contributions at: https://www.ortegaforcouncil.com or click HERE. I don’t hide my positions!
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.
—“1984” by George Orwell
If Miguel doesn’t win the Primary, I will certainly consider supporting the Republican running for the seat (if she isn’t some loco MAGAt neo-cultist). My father, may he rest in peace, had a simple formula at election time: he would always vote against the incumbent. He said his reasoning was based on his belief that “the longer these thieves are in office the more they figure out ways to rob money from our pockets.” I didn’t agree with him back then, but that was when I was young and knew virtually everything.
So let’s be clear: I support Miguel Ortega for Ward 1, but neither he nor any of his fine campaign workers ever asked me to make a public records request and I never told any of them that I would before I did so: not that there would have been anything wrong with any campaign making such a request. If the information I receive helps to defeat LSC I won’t be unhappy, but her accusation that a political campaign was behind the records request is a lie. I should note that misinformation is nothing new from Ward 1: on one of her recent newsletters she printed that the Primary Election is on August 2nd — it is on August 1. (Personally, I would not discourage any of her sycophantic supporters in showing up to vote the day after the election: you should do what your master tells you!)
MY OWN “SHADY” HISTORY WITH PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS
My first “PRR” request was just for the Ward 1 budget information, but after this simple request seemed like it was being “punted” by the bureaucracy, I renewed my request but added an additional one: the official Ward 1 city email list — the list which LSC uses to promote her candidacy and disparage her political opponents.
A primary reason I write Bog News is because I had spent over 20 years working in city and county government as the chief of staff for two city council members (both Democrats) and one member of the Pima County Board of Supervisors (a Republican). I know the games the politicos and their staff play, which makes it easier to expose their shenanigans — because I played the same game (and pretty successfully). The difference these days is there are no reporters actually covering local government, and without a watchdog over them, the wankers will take all they can get.
I was chief of staff to Ray Carroll when he was appointed as a Pima County supervisor after the death of the sitting “Supe,” John Even. Because the appointment happened late in the term, we had only one year to get organized in the county system and at the same time had to campaign for the office for the regular four-year term. We were running against John’s widow, Brenda Even, who was a well known politico in her own right as a member of the TUSD school board. Nobody knew who the hell Ray Carroll was: neither any Republicans or Democrats. He had only recently switched his party affiliation from D to R at my urging. He wanted to run for some office and as he lived in Country Club Estates, I told him he needed to run as an R. (His only concern in doing so was how his father would react, who worked for the “Democrat” Mayor Daley in Chicago!) Supervisor Raul Grijalva, who engineered Ray Carroll’s appointment in my living room, needed a Republican to fill the seat and Ray fit the “RINO” qualifications and was appointed with a slim majority. Once Ray acted independently (he opposed a new county sales tax), the romantic honeymoon was over with the Grijalvistas and the rest is history as they say.
In any case, we had to figure out a way for the constituents to get to know Mr. Carroll. We used our “franking privileges” — similar to what LSC and others have done — to promote him. So we sent out a questionnaire to all the constituents in the county’s District 4 asking their opinions on a number of relevant issues. We made sure each piece has a nice smiling photo of Ray on the cover (or was it Cary Grant?) and made sure the response cards had stamps on them to make it easy for constituents to participate. All this was done at county taxpayer expense and was totally legal. (You can be the judge in terms of “shade.”)
The questionnaire accomplished several important things: right off, it gave potential voters a face to go along with a name, it introduced the residents to their newly appointed supervisor as one who wanted to hear their concerns and provided them with a vehicle to do so, and it gave us with valuable information on the sentiments of our constituents, which we used both in terms of policy decision-making and as part of our campaign issues. We won the election, and every election after that.
Every politician enjoys these privileges: it is why you may be on mailing lists for “newsletters” by many elected officials. They want to remind you that they are there, what they look like, and all the hard work (LOL) they are engaged in on your behalf. Legal but shady, indeed. But part of the deal is that all elected officials know that whatever they do in their offices is supposed to be done for the public and the public has a right to see what they are doing. In this regard, I give another example, again at Pima County.
ANOTHER RELEVANT EXAMPLE
When Ray Carroll was appointed in the late 1990s, the internet and emails were just starting to be utilized at city and county offices. As chief of staff, I gathered all our employees together and laid out the rules of how we would operate: every letter, phone call, or email had to be responded to within 24 hours. We all were advised to be respectful of our constituents, no matter how irate they were (except when racist or sexist diatribes were used). There is one point I stressed vigorously in every public office I worked in: every note taken in the office, every memo written, every report formulated — like the very office itself and everything that was in it — belonged to the public.
Being fully aware of Arizona’s public records law, I stressed the fact that any reporter (or citizen) could walk into our office at any time and ask to see any file they wanted or memo written and we had to comply — so for god’s (and our own) sake, don’t write or do anything inappropriate in the office!
Excerpts: Title 39 – Public Records, Printing and Notices
39-101. Permanent public records; quality; storage; violation; classification
Permanent public records of the state, a county, city or town, or other political subdivision of the state, shall be transcribed or kept on paper or other material which is of durable or permanent quality…
B. Permanent public records … shall be stored and maintained according to standards for the storage of permanent public records …
C. A public officer … who violates this section is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.
———————————————————————————
39-121. Inspection of public records
Public records and other matters in the custody of any officer shall be open to inspection by any person at all times during office hours.
———————————————————————————
D. Subject to section 39-121.03:
Any person may request to examine or be furnished copies, printouts or photographs of any public record during regular office hours or may request that the custodian mail a copy of any public record not otherwise available on the public body’s website to the requesting person… The custodian of such records shall promptly furnish such copies, printouts or photographs…
Then one day it happened: a reporter from a newspaper pranced onto the 11th floor of the Pima County Administrative building where all the county supervisors had their offices and asked to examine what was on all of our computers. Knowing the law, and self-assured that my employees had all complied with my directive, I quickly complied with the request. In fact, every office but one cooperated, and the one exception was Supervisor Dan Eckstrom, who told the reporter to take a hike. Dan wouldn’t let anyone have access to his office: including cops, fire inspectors, or reporters. No one ever accused him of over-appreciating the rule of law, Big Dan (“El Padrino”) was always protected by the County Administrator, Chuck “give me more” Huckelberry and County Attorney “Babas” LaWall.
Eckstrom’s intransigence towards granting legal accessibility to his office turned out to be a great blessing in disguise for us in District 4. After the reporter gained access to four out of five of the supervisors offices, she called to let me know that someone in our office had used a computer to access a graphic porn site. The employee resigned but the damage was done. Before it hit the press I thought of one possibility to counter what could have been political death for the newly appointed Supervisor.
“Not everything that is faced can be changed; but nothing can be changed until it is faced.”
— James Baldwin
I knew Ann Eve Peterson (R.I.P.) as an excellent and ethical local reporter who covered city politics when I was chief of staff for both council members Bruce Wheeler and Mike Haggerty. She had been promoted to an editor’s position when I started working at the county, and I called her up to talk about the incoming bombshell. My complaint was that they were about to smack the crap out of us (and sink our fledging campaign) for admittedly improper use of public resources (by an employee who was no longer employed), but the only way they knew of the improper activity was because we complied with their public records request. Dan Eckstrom did not comply with their legal request and the reporter did not pursue the issue to gain access to his office, and so they had no idea what was on his computers that they were prevented from seeing. So — he gets to walk free and unscathed in the newspaper after giving them the finger, but those who fully complied with the law and provided full access get totally screwed? How was that fair?
The end result was a much watered down article that was printed in some experimental Star e-newsletter that was read by virtually nobody. We missed a bullet, but the lesson was pounded into all of us: what you do as a public official is always public and don’t friggin’ forget it. That was then, but apparently things are different now.
HOW PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS CAN AFFECT POLITICAL CHANGE
A good argument could be make that the public records request made to the City of Tucson regarding the attempted privatization of the El Rio Golf Course may have stopped the sale that would have robbed the Westside of this treasured public green space.
The El Rio Coalition II fought to get the public records on the Grand Canyon University deal with the city refusing to comply and the Coalition having to go to court to get the records. (Thank Panchamama once again for Bill Risner!) In a ruling of the case of Cecelia Cruz Baldenegro vs the City of Tucson (we love you Ceci!) our local hero attorney blasted away the city’s obstruction and we got many of the files we requested.
In the files we finally wrestled from the city we obtained critical information that the city had directed its hired appraiser to lie about the value of the Golf Course and claim it was all vacant lots (without electricity, water, buildings, trees, and 100 acres of green grass). They wanted to depreciate publicly owned property to sweeten the deal more for the development, a violation of the State of Arizona’s Gift Clause.
The scam collapsed. While the city to this day has never rescinded the (5-2) vote to privatize El Rio Golf Course (thank you again Fimbres and Kozachik for your NO votes), it was due to the heat of public protest — and with documents in our hands — that the developer retracted their offer and this REALLY SHADY deal was buried (for now). I am convinced that our success in court (and the subsequent documents the city was forced to reveal) was the main reason El Rio was saved.
CAN’T PROVIDE RECORDS IF THEY HAVE BEEN STOLEN!
Of course there are “shady” ways to get around complying with a legal public records request. Once the El Rio Coalition II won the lawsuit and asked for all files that the city originally (and illegally) denied us, the Ward 1 council member at the time who lead the charge for selling off the green space — Regina Romero — claimed during this time period that someone broke into her office and stole only one thing: her hard drive with the info we requested. There were no signs of any break-in, no alarm went off, and nothing else was stolen from the Ward 1 Office but her hard drive (!) Hey, if the documents are “stolen” what could she turn over, right? Nothing strange here, just move on folks…
We have learned that being able to access public documents can change the course of events, which is why the status quo fights so hard against public access. Often documents can prove that our leaders are lying and their records can be used to hold them accountable. As a friend of mine suggested: “Dance like no one is watching, and text like you might hear it read back to you in court one day.”
LSC needs to be held accountable
Lane’s “Canvas Team” — how many are city employees? for how she uses our tax money and public resources. For almost four years she has had free rein to use her staff and all the city machinery to promote her persona. Yet less than two months out from her election she gets apoplectic that someone may use the same resources to reveal to her constituents how she spends their money. Talk about thin-skinned arrogance. Talk about unrestrained incumbent — “might” privilege. Talk about using emails for “shady” tactics due to a lack of a “strong community base.” We are talking LSC. In just the past few months, i.e. election season, she has used her city email service to promote everything from cleaning streets to a Mothers Day ride, to a “Small Business Spotlight,” citizen classes, and celebrating childhood, all the while using city emails to promote people and events she hardly paid any attention to until campaign season. Plus she even uses the same city letterhead for her campaign and for her city events (an old PRI-ista tactic from Mexico).
SO WHAT DOES PHILLY HAVE THAT WE DON’T? (Hint: a PAC)
So back to the budget questions: why is LSC spending thousands of dollars sending a dozen people to Philly, and for what?
Back in the “old” days when I worked for elected officials (1987-2012) if there was a conference or an event that we thought worth attending, we usually would send ONE person to attend, make contacts, and report back. Today there are zoom meetings, electronic messaging, and all kinds of ways to participate in such events without having to pay a whole coterie of cronies their airfares and a separate hotel room for each!
Although the city has refused to tell me (as of today) who went and why, I have found out what the event was — which makes it even more questionable why a dozen people needed to go.
The organization in charge of the event is a group called “Mijente” whose website can be found HERE. They describe themselves as “a political home for latinz and Chicanz people who seek racial, economic, gender and climate justice” and who are “pro-Black, pro-indigena, pro-worker, pro-mujer, pro-lesbian, gay, bi, trans and queer, and pro-migrant.” Their campaigns include fighting for a “review of agencies responsible for managing immigration,” although no such review was listed on their website.
But the other important thing is that it is the Mijente Political Action Committee that has helped LSC in her city council race!
“Mijente PAC,” which defines their “Industry” as “Human Rights: Minority/Ethnic Groups” is “a hybrid political action committee that … has the ability to operate both as a traditional PAC, contributing funds to a candidate’s committee, and as a super PAC, which makes independent expenditures.” They can “collect unlimited contributions from almost any source for its independent expenditure account, (but may not use those funds for its traditional PAC contributions).” according to Open Secrets HERE.
So LSC spends a bunch of taxpayer money on “Mijente” and they turn around and help with unlimited dark money contributions (like maybe those contributed from the City of Tucson’s Ward 1 Office?) to prop up her campaign!
Highlights of Philadelphia:
A hitchhiking “robot” that was a Canadian social experiment was decapitated.
2) The GM of the Sixers was fired for having burner Twitter accounts .
3) There was a giant warehouse fire in front of which an Elmo drumline played music.
4) Someone ate actual horse manure after the Eagles won the Super Bowl.
5) A respected museum displays pieces of Einstein’s brain along with 139 skulls.
6) A top event featured strippers surrounding people puking as they raced to eat the most wings.
7) The NFL stadium used to have an actual courtroom in it because of rowdy fans.
8) There is a cracked bell there they have never fixed.
Como se dice “quid pro quo” en Español?
On top of that she is applying for public matching funds —you know, the program that was supposed to prevent dark money from PAC’s influencing elections. The program instead is just an incumbent security scam as most small campaigns can’t comply with all the bureaucratize.
The “festival” sponsor for Mijente in Philadelphia was called “Lánzate 2022” and it is billed as a “Latinx/Chicanz cultural and political festival” for “Latinx change makers” where “gente from the front lines of la lucha y el perreo* come together at Lánzate for connection and entertainment.”
So glad our Tucson delegation got some entertainment in. Like me, you may also be entertained just reading about it HERE.
[* I had to look up what “perreo” means in Spanish: it is a “dance, that focuses on grinding, with the man facing the back of the woman… ‘perreo’, meaning dancing doggystyle, derives from the Spanish word perro, meaning “dog”. This is also known as “booty dancing” or “grinding” in the United States of America.”]
Participants were encouraged to “explore multi-media experiences featuring trending Latinz initiatives, dance, or peruse the feria” with each night bringing “opportunities for pop up parties and events.” They encourage participants to go ahead and: “Take part in whatever feels right to you!”
Sounds almost like Woodstock for brown folk, but without Santana. [Note of personal preference here: I was actually at Woodstock and saw Santana for the first time, but it was, alas, not paid for by taxpayers and I was pissed when I saw the fences torn down because I was one of the dummies who paid for tickets].
Unfortunately, what “feels right” to me does not include using thousands of dollars of public funds to send Ward 1’s 12 apostles to party in Philly, but it does compel me to ask:
Would sending 1 person to the “event” instead of all 12 have killed the buzz?
Why do we really need to send a contingent to an “Latinx/Chicanz” event in Philadelphia (?) to get in touch with their inner political correctness?
Isn’t there anyone here in the heart of “Aztlan” that can teach them to dance and party and take part in whatever “feels right?” [HINT: I have some Yaqui neighbors who could put on one hell of a party for a lot less than $15,000].
Is there no better use of the $15,000+ of our money than this?
* How many people could be fed at Casa Maria or the Food Bank?
* How many potholes, bike lanes, or sidewalks could be fixed?
* How many “pop up parties” could be stocked with Irish whiskey?
[Sorry, I got carried away there…]
We could dance and party right here in Tucson (I vote for El Casino Ballroom) for all the reasons the twelve travelers supposedly went for, but how about we include a workshop on “budgetary responsibility of elected officials” as part of their “awakening” process?
I mean, if it feels right…
Final questions to you dear reader:
- Is it any wonder LSC doesn’t want us to see her books?
- Imagine what could be found if any investigative reporters still existed?
- You want 4 more years of this?
There are plenty of other highlight to come regarding the excessive and potentially illegal spending at Ward 1. (Did she use city funds to pay for her campaign kickoff at a Hollywood restaurant?). We will update our readers if and when we get access to the actual records. This may take another court case to force the City of Tucson to follow the law as in the El Rio case — but we have a Cherokee kick-ass from Kentucky watching!
===========================
Next issue: 12 (more) reasons to vote against Ward 1 council member Lane Santa Cruz in the Democratic Primary!
REMEMBER: You should get your ballots the first week of July, and they need to be mailed in by August 1 (except LSC voters who have been directed to show up on the 2nd!).
Until then, hasta…
BOG NEWS is the “soul” responsibility of Scott D. Egan (The Bogman). Please let us know if you want to be unsubscribed by emailing “unsubscribe” back .
Thanks!
PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS
As you may note, Ward 1 has not responded, although the City Clerk and City Attorney have. We will be relentless in pursuing our right to know!
Initial request:
Bogg Mann boggmann@yahoo.com To: ward1@tucsonaz.gov
Wed, May 24 at 9:59 AM
Please review the following attachment regarding some budgetary questions I have for the City of Tucson and specifically my ward.
I look forward to a prompt response.
Thank you,
Scott D. Egan
Barrio Hollywood
May 24, 2023
Dear Council Member Santa Cruz:
As a constituent of yours and a longtime resident of Barrio Hollywood I have an interest in your “Participatory Budget” process but have not had the time to fully participate in it, although several of your staff members gave a brief review of it at a Barrio Hollywood meeting for which we are appreciative. I wish you well with that endeavor, as citizens participation in the budget process is vital to a functioning democracy.
In that regard, I have had the opportunity to review some of your budget at the Ward 1 Office and I would greatly appreciate a detailed explanation of some of your expenses.
Specifically:
- October 7, 2022 there are $1,296.14 in combined expenses that was paid to “THE MADISON.” Please indicate what these expenses are specifically for whom they were granted.
- November 11, 2022 there is a listing of a total of $8,846.40 for 12 tickets ($737 each) for “DELTA.” Please identify the name of each person awarded a ticket and the purpose of their trip.
- In December 5 2022 there are 12 payments ($590 each) totaling $7,080 for “SHERATON PHILADELPHIA.” Please indicate the names of the 12 individuals involved and the purpose of this expense.
- On December 22 , 2022 there is a $1,852.50 expense for “HOLA TUCSON MAGA.” Please explain the purpose of this expense.
- On January 6 2023 there is a $6,163.50 expense for “LEADLOCAL.” Please explain the purpose of this expense.
- In January 7, 2023 there is a $1,127 expense for “HILTON CAPITAL” Please for whom this expense was used and for what purpose.
- On January 10, 2023 there is a $400.31 expense for “ASPEN MEADOWS RESORT.” Please explain this expense and whom it was used for.
- In February 2023 there is a $3,500 expense for “In CUADRO LLC.’ Please explain the purpose of this expense.
- February 27, 2023 there is a $360 expense for “SQ EL ANTIOJO POBLANO.” What was the purpose of this expense?
- In April 24, 2023 there are 9 items totaling $5,215 for “UNITED.” Please explain the purpose and list the individuals who benefited from these funds.
- In May 10, 2023 there is a $514.92 expense for “Hilton Hotels.” Please explain who this was for and the purpose.
- Finally on May 12, 2023 there is a $300 expense for “Paw Body Benefits.” Please explain the purpose of this expense and to whom it was awarded.
Please acknowledge your receipt of this inquiry, and when you think I may reasonably expect a response to this inquiry.
Again, good luck with your budget process and I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Scott D. Egan
From City Clerk’ Office
clerk cityclerk@tucsonaz.gov
To:boggmann@yahoo.com
Thu, Jun 1 at 1:20 PM
Mr. Egan,
In response to the budget inquiry that you sent to the Ward 1 Office dated June 24, 2023 (attached), we are providing the following records response. Items #1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 12 listed are not expenses incurred by the Ward 1 Office. Items #2 and 3 are expenses charged by the Ward 1 Office for a grant funded and grant directed trip. Items #5, 8, and 9 are also expenses charged by the Ward 1 Office for items funded by American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). None of the charges incurred by Ward 1 were paid for by City of Tucson General Fund dollars. Receipts for all items are attached.
In the future, requests for public records must use the process outlined at https://beta.tucsonaz.gov/Departments/Clerks/Request-for-Public-Records
Sincerely,
Maria D. Talamante
Assistant City Clerk
========================
Scott D. Egan
June 4, 2023
To the City Clerk, Tucson
Reference: Public Document Request regarding Ward 1 Budget
I have received your June 1st email response to my request for budgetary information in the Ward 1 Council Office. Unfortunately, your email does not fully address what I requested, and only confirmed my numbers in the receipts. In other words, you answered nothing and provided no information that I did not already have which I provided you in the initial inquiry.
My May 24th request for information asked what the purposes of the expenses were and to whom the expenses were granted. You response to items only gave the amounts issued that were charged to “Employee: Lane Santa Cruz (50891). “
To make my request easier, lets start with only half of the 12 items I asked information on, specifically items 1,2,3,6,10, and 11. As listed, my requests asked the following:
“1. October 7, 2022 there are $1,296.14 in combined expenses that was paid to “THE MADISON.” Please indicate what these expenses are specifically for whom they were granted.
- November 11, 2022 there is a listing of a total of $8,846.40 for 12 tickets ($737 each) for “DELTA.” Please identify the name of each person awarded a ticket and the purpose of their trip.
- In December 5 2022 there are 12 payments ($590 each) totaling $7,080 for “SHERATON PHILADELPHIA.” Please indicate the names of the 12 individuals involved and the purpose of this expense.
- In January 7, 2023 there is a $1,127 expense for ‘HILTON CAPITAL.’ Please for whom this expense was used and for what purpose.
- In April 24, 2023 there are 9 items totaling $5,215 for “UNITED.” Please explain the purpose and list the individuals who benefited from these funds.
- In May 10, 2023 there is a $514.92 expense for ‘Hilton Hotels.’ Please explain who this was for and the purpose.”
All the receipts in question are from “Employee Lane Santa Cruz.” Should the taxpayer looking at your response assume that the 12 tickets paid to Delta Airlines, all issued on 11/11/22, were for Lane Santa Cruz and no one else? Did she take 12 trips at the same time? If not, who else is listed?
Likewise, are the 12 payments to “Sheraton Philadelphia” only have Lane Santa Cruz listed. Are all 12 payments for one room for council member Santa Cruz? If not, what other individuals were housed at taxpayer expense?
What I am requesting is not confidential information, but public documents that you are required to share with the public when you receive such requests. The few selected items listed above amount to over $24,000 taken from the public trough for purposes you are not revealing and for the protection of persons you are keeping anonymous for some unknown, and probably unjustifiable, reason.
I am sure we would all like to avoid litigation regarding the rights of citizens to know how their money is being spent, so you can consider this my SECOND request for the information. If you need more assistance in comprehending this request and public documents law, please ask your city attorney to provide information on the successful court case residents brought on the El Rio Golf privatization attempts by the City of Tucson in 2016.
Do we really want to go through this again?
Please provide the documentation that I requested and what is required by law.
This is not a request or a suggestion, but a citizen’s demand.
Sincerely,
Scott D. Egan
————————————————————————————————————
From: Bogg Mann boggmann@yahoo.com
Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2023 10:29 AM
To: cityclerk cityclerk@tucsonaz.gov
Dear Ms. Talamante:
Thank you for your response regarding my requests concerning the Ward 1 budget expenditures. Unfortunately, you did not provide me with answers to my questions.
Therefore please consider this a formal public records request. As you (or the City Attorney) certainly should be aware, Title 39 in Arizona Law states (under 39-121) “Inspection of public records” clearly indicates that:
”Public records and other matters in the custody of any officer shall be open to inspection by any person at all times during office hours.”
Please contact me as soon as possible to arrange when and where I can come in to inspect all records with regards to the Ward 1 Office budget.
I have included excerpts from Title 39 in the attachment below. Please note that failure to provide these public records “promptly” will constitute a class 2 misdemeanor and could cost the City of Tucson potential lawyer fees if it may become necessary to pursue any legal remedies in order to access public records.
In addition to my previous request, I am also asking for a list of all email addresses that Ward 1 uses to send out its newsletters to constituents, which also constitutes a public records request on my part.
I look forward to your prompt response.
Scott D. Egan
======================================================
FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
Mike Rankin mike.rankin@tucsonaz.gov To: boggmann@yahoo.com, Maria Talamante, Ward1, CityManager, cityclerk Mon, Jun 5 at 10:32 PM Mr. Egan, The AZ public records laws provide you with access to public records. They do not compel explanations in response to your various questions. Records that are responsive to your requests have been provided. Records responsive to your new request, relating to the newsletter email list, will also be provided. You need not attach excerpts from the statutes to your future requests. We are familiar with the applicable law.
To: Mike Rankin, City Attorney Tue, Jun 6 at 2:38 PM Mr. Rankin: Thank you for your response to my public records request. The records that the city provided are not fully responsive to my requests, and I am therefore requesting that I be able to personally review all records regarding the budget expenditures for the Ward 1 office. I am again requesting a time and place, convenient for city staff during business hours, for me to review all Ward 1 budget records as per Arizona law. I look forward to your compliance when I will be allowed the right to review the records in question. Most Sincerely, Scott D. Egan PS: I included excerpts of the applicable public records law in my last request not because I did not think you were aware of the public records law (see: Celia Cruz vs City) but because I wanted you to know we are aware of the law.
=======================
As LSC says: “You morons don’t know jack — but now you do!”
MORE IS COMING!!!
(Especially if we are finally granted access to public documents — but will it be before the election?)
Stay tuned in to BOG NEWS!
“In a time of universal deceit,
telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
— George Orwell
VIVA EL RIO!
from the bog 