Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
The writers at this blog and Steve Muratore at The Arizona Eagletarian have described how the publication by lobbyists and for lobbyists, the Arizona Capitol Times and more specifically its sister publication, the political gossip rag The Yellow Sheet, played a major role in advancing the GOP talking points against the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. They published it first, then other media repeated it in the echo chamber.
Attorney General Tom Horne even cited the articles in these publications as "evidence" for filing his politically motivated witch hunt against the AIRC. The media provided cover for the politically motivated intimidation and harassment of the AIRC by Tea-Publicans.
The other major political news service in Arizona is Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services. The writers at this blog have previously expressed concerns about Mr. Fischer's political views being expressed in editorializing opinion in what is supposed to be objective reporting. This has been evident in his reporting on Sen. Russell Pearce, and in particular, in his reporting on Governor Jan Brewer.
In fact, in recent months it appears that Howard Fischer has been acting as Jan Brewer's publisher PR agent for the release of her book, "Scorpions for Breakfast," to be released on November 1. No one has written more on this topic. Here are just a few of his releases:
– 'Scorpions for Breakfast': Brewer writing her memoirs (May 9, 2011)
– Brewer: If 'Scorpions for Breakfast' book is late, blame Obama (August 22, 011)
– Brewer book done, Palin writes foreword (October 4, 2011)
– Brewer goes on tour, singing Arizona's praises (October 8, 2011)
– Obama was patronizing during their DC meeting, Brewer says in new book (October 21, 2011)
Recenty, Jan Brewer declared war on the AIRC beginning the process to remove commissioners by sending a demand letter to the commission demanding answers to questions by Monday, October 31 — on the eve of the release of her book.
Keep this in mind when reading Fischer's biased reporting on the Governor's assault on the AIRC today. Independent, Dems on Arizona redistricting panel vote to shore up legal defense – at public expense – East Valley Tribune:
Three members of the Independent Redistricting Commission voted Saturday night to spend public funds to hire lawyers for each of them to respond to questions raised about their conduct by Gov. Jan Brewer.
The move, which followed a closed-door session, came over the objections of Scott Freeman, one of the two Republicans on the panel. He said it is not "appropriate'' for the panel, which already is paying two law firms to represent the commission as a whole, to shell out more cash for more attorneys.
So the other three — independent Chairwoman Colleen Mathis and Democrats Linda McNulty and Jose Herrera — voted to leave Freeman and fellow Republican Richard Stertz out and instead get more legal help only for themselves.
Ray Bladine, the commission's executive director, said the attorneys will work over the rest of the weekend in a bid to meet Brewer's deadline to respond to her questions by 8 a.m. Monday.
* * *
The decision to retain three lawyers to respond to Brewer is likely to only exacerbate the controversy.
* * *
In her letter last week to the commission, the governor questioned an earlier decision to hire those same attorneys as legal counsel for the same three commissioners.
That was to respond to a separate probe of the panel that was being conducted by Attorney General Tom Horne. Brewer said she does not believe there is legal authority to retain multiple attorneys.
Freeman and Stertz did not seek legal help there, either, opting to testify about possible Open Meeting Law violations rather than fighting his authority to question them.
In his comments Saturday, Freeman said spending more money on lawyers to deal with Brewer's concerns "would compound the concerns … in the governor's letter.''
* * *
Freeman said the commissioners themselves should respond to Brewer, without getting more lawyers involved.
"I don't think it's appropriate at this time to take the step of authorizing the expenditure of additional public funds to have additional legal representation for individual commissioners,'' he said.
In a separate vote, the panel directed Mary O'Grady, one of the two staff attorneys, to respond to a separate letter by Brewer questioning some of the decisions the panel made in drawing the congressional districts. What they told O'Grady to tell the governor, though, is not known, as that, too, was discussed behind closed doors.
The other staff attorney, Joe Kanefield, will not be participating in that response. That is because he used to be the governor's chief legal counsel and still represent her, as an attorney in private practice, in several other legal matters.
So what is missing from Fischer's biased reporting? Any discussion of attorney-client conflict of interest and joint representation of clients (except for his acknowledgment of Kanefield's conflict of interest). This goes to the heart of the reason why Attorney General Tom Horne was recently precluded from proceeding with his politically motivated witch hunt of the AIRC by a Superior Court judge.
The Commission's attorneys represent the Commission as a legal entity. They have provided legal advice to the Commission that is subject to attorney-client privilege. Those discussions cannot be disclosed in response to Jan Brewer's demand letter.
Horne and Brewer have raised allegations of misconduct by specific commissioners. Their legal interests are separate and distinct from the Commission's legal interests as a legal entity. Moreover, these commissioners may have conflicting legal interests with respect to one another, and therefore they are entitled to separate legal counsel. It would be a conflict of interest for the Commission's attorneys, now just Mary O'Grady after Joe Kanefield has been conflicted out, to jointly represent both the Commission and the individual commissioners accused of misconduct.
This is frequently the case with corporations and individual board members or even company employees. Corporate counsel is required to notify individuals that they should seek their own legal counsel due to a potential conflict of interest. There is nothing "controversial" or even remarkable about this, Mr. Fischer. It is required by the Rules of Professional Conduct. You are fabricating a "controversy" with your biased reporting.
Commissioner Scott Freeman, who is a lawyer, also knows this to be true. He would be required to do the same in representing multiple clients with potentially conflicting interests. Freeman's comments are political posturing, and he shoud be ashamed.
The only real controversy here, Mr. Fischer, is a highly coordinated assault on the AIRC and the Arizona constitutional provision which created the commission by Arizona Republican elected officials, from our GOP congressional delegation and their "soft money" redistricting organization FAIR Trust (and its attorneys/lobbyists), the GOP caucus of the Arizona legislature, and state executive officers including the Governor and Attorney General. This is a conspiracy by Arizona Republicans to violate and to vitiate the citizen's initiative Prop. 106 that was approved by the voters of Arizona (a super-legislature) which created the AIRC.
Only 35.5 percent of voters are registered as Republicans in Arizona. Yet this minority is behaving as an authoritiarian regime to dictate to the majority that they will have no voice and have no choice in elections. A "permanent Republican majority" will be engineered by disregarding the will of the voters and undermining the AIRC, either through stacking the commission with GOP-friendly commissioners who will gerrymander districts to the satisfaction of elected Republicans (as occurred ten years ago), or destroying the commission entirely. This is the real story. But our political media in Arizona is failing us by carrying water for the GOP.
UPDATE: By way of comparison, kudos to Mary Jo Pitzl of the Arizona Republic for her objective factual report. 3 Arizona redistricting commission members hire legal counsel. And a surpise to me, I must admit, kudos to the editor of the Arizona Republic who penned this editorial opinion today. Brewer's threat against officials oversteps office:
Governor, put down the ax. The process of drawing new congressional and legislative districts has been messy enough.
Now comes your letter to all five members of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission notifying them of allegations of "substantial neglect of duty and gross misconduct."
The words are as menacing as an ax blade: They're the constitutional grounds for removing commissioners from office. You have the power to do so, with two-thirds concurrence from the Senate.
You should drop that weapon.
Whatever the flaws in the process, nothing rises to the level of booting out commissioners.
* * *
Governor, your intrusion into the judicial realm is surreal. You're demanding that commissioners submit signed declarations by 8 a.m. Monday – "failure to respond will be taken as an admission." Are you planning to act as judge on complex open-meeting questions based solely on their responses? If they disagree, will you rule on who's right?
* * *
Voters established the redistricting commission through a constitutional amendment in 2000. The goal was to take the once-a-decade mapping task away from legislators with their vested interests and put it into the hands of a volunteer panel.
Governor, let the commission do its job.
And in a real shocker, even über-conservative Robert Robb in a roundabout way concludes Brewer's map-panel attack unjustified:
Brewer sent all five commissioners a letter Wednesday accusing them of "substantial neglect of duty and gross misconduct" and giving them until Monday morning to prove their innocence.
* * *
At this point, threatening commissioners with removal is at best premature. At worst, it is an abuse of power itself.
* * *
[B]ad map-drawing isn't neglect of duty or gross misconduct.
* * *
The [open meetings law] accusations are in the process of being investigated and adjudicated. The commission is arguing that the Open Meeting Law doesn't apply to it. The governor and state Senate are not an adjudicatory body with any right or competence to judge that legal claim.
Moreover, Open Meeting Law violations are ordinarily treated as the equivalent of governmental speeding tickets. Providing the death penalty for a single violation would be hugely disproportionate.
* * *
[T]he initiative gives the commission unrestricted contracting authority. It can do what it wants.
* * *
[T]he state Supreme Court has said that the commission has considerable latitude in balancing competing factors in drawing the maps.
* * *
[N]othing that is on the public record so far justifies removal from office or the threat thereof.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.