Sen. Wendy Rogers Is Padding Her Per Diem Pay By Falsely Claiming She Lives In Her District (She Does Not)

by

Howard Fischer reports, Rogers gets court order against reporter investigating the location her primary home:

State Sen. Wendy Rogers got a Flagstaff justice of the peace to issue an order enjoining Arizona Capitol Times reporter Camryn Sanchez from approaching her at her home.

The order, issued Wednesday by [Flagstaff Justice Court Magistrate Judge] Amy Criddle and served Thursday on Sanchez, came after Rogers complained to the judge that Sanchez had gone to two of her homes, one in Tempe and one in Chandler. The newspaper reports that Sanchez was doing her job, checking reports that Rogers was not living at the address she claimed in Flagstaff but at one of the other two sites, neither of which is in her legislative district.

 

This is an excellent point! The temporary restraining order provides for a hearing in 10 days. The reporter should request a hearing, and force Wendy Rogers to appear in court to testify to establish that she did not approach her vacation home in Flagstaff. No jurisdiction, restraining order dismissed.

In her request, Rogers told the judge she had previously told Sanchez not to approach her in the Senate.

A spokeswoman for Senate President Warren Petersen told Capitol Media Services said he had approved for the chamber’s sergeant at arms to tell Sanchez not to go up to Rogers on the Senate floor. But Kim Quintero said Petersen has no intention of limiting the reporter’s activity or revoking the privileges that reporters now possess to be on the Senate floor.

She acknowledged, though, that Petersen was the one who suggested Rogers seek an injunction “because she is fearful of Camryn and she fears for her safety.“

Rogers, armed with what she said was doorbell camera footage, then asked Criddle to keep Sanchez away from her at all times and all places.

The judge, however, only barred Sanchez from going to the senator’s home, though the order does not specify which residences that applies to.

Rogers, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel, issued a statement late Thursday in which she acknowledged she has two homes in the Phoenix area, both outside her legislative district. But Rogers also said that she does not know Sanchez personally and “don’t know what she is capable of.”

“I don’t believe anyone in their right mind would show up uninvited to my home at night,” Rogers said, with one of the three photos from a doorbell camera she posted online apparently taken after dark. But the senator did not say at which of the homes, both outside her legislative district, the pictures were taken.

And Petersen late Thursday released a statement that could be read as essentially inviting other legislators, approached by reporters outside of the Senate, to seek similar court order.

“Everyone deserves privacy in their personal residences without worrying about reporters repeatedly showing up unannounced,” he said.

According to the newspaper, Sanchez was looking into whether Rogers lives in a mobile home on West Historical Route 66, the address listed on her nomination papers, or was instead actually residing at one of the other two addresses. That followed an investigation of public property records showing that Rogers and her husband bought a home in Chandler in January and signed a trust document saying that she lived in Tempe.

Neither property is within Legislative District 7. The sprawling district runs from Williams through part of Flagstaff, east to Snowflake and then south through Payson, Miami, Apache Junction all the way to San Manuel.

The newspaper said Sanchez had gone to the Chandler and Tempe residences in an attempt to speak with neighbors to find out whether Rogers lived at either address. The paper also said she wanted to ask Rogers why the document title she signed stated that she resided in Tempe.

The possession of multiple residences is neither a violation of state election laws nor a finding that a legislator does not live where stated. Instead, courts routinely rely on statements from lawmakers of what is their “intention.”

Rogers, in filing her nomination papers, said last year she had been a resident of the district for six years. And a state constitutional provision says elected officials must be registered voters in the political division they represent.

Requirements to reside in the district aside, the question of where a lawmaker actually lives also has financial implications.

Under state law, lawmakers who live in Maricopa County are entitled to $35 a day for every day the Legislature is in session. That includes weekends and holidays.

But those from the other 14 counties get an allowance equal to what the federal General Services Administration lists as travel expenses for federal employees visiting Maricopa County. That is currently $151 a day for lodging with an additional $69 daily for meals and incidentals.

According to the Capitol Times, Rogers has been seeking reimbursement at the out-of-county rate.

Reporters for years have been able to be on the Senate floor.

While they cannot wander during session, they have been free to approach senators either before or afterwards. At the same time, lawmakers always have been able to decline to respond, something that Rogers repeatedly has done with multiple reporters.

Rogers was censured last year in a 24-3 Senate vote for “conduct unbecoming of a senator.”

The specifics included “publicly issuing and promoting social media and video messaging encouraging violence and punishment of American citizens.” That flowed from the senator’s activities, including a speech to a white supremacist group.

But the resolution also made reference to her last-ditch effort to avoid being censured, with then-Senate Majority Leader Rick Gray of Sun City noting a Twitter post threatening “political destruction” of those who disagree with her views.

In a floor speech, Rogers lashed out, calling the action an attack on her First Amendment rights.

“I do not apologize,” she said. “I will not back down.”

It seems to me that Senate President Warren Petersen is as much of a story here as Wendy Rogers for encouraging senators to engage in the GQP’s war on the mainstream media for doing their jobs of holding them accountable.

Also, Wendy Rogers is clearly padding her per diem account by falsely claiming that she resides in her district. She is ripping off Arizona taxpayers. Sen. Petersen does not appear to be the least bit concerned about this. Is this because other state senators are doing the same thing (I know of cases in the past where this occurred) and he doesn’t want to encourage the media to also investigate their actions? I just did.

It’s bad enough that politicians can get elected from districts in which they do not live, but ripping off the taxpayers in the process to pad their legislative pay ought to be a chargeable offense (e.g. fraud).

UPDATE:

 




10 thoughts on “Sen. Wendy Rogers Is Padding Her Per Diem Pay By Falsely Claiming She Lives In Her District (She Does Not)”

  1. UPDATE: The Arizona Capitol Times reports:

    The Flagstaff Justice Court will hold an in-person hearing to consider a challenge to an injunction against harassment the court issued against an Arizona Capitol Times reporter at the request of state Senator Wendy Rogers.

    According to court records, attorney Christopher Hennessy filed a request for an in-person hearing to challenge the injunction on April 25. The court scheduled a hearing in Flagstaff on May 10.

    Judge Howard Grodman, the elected Flagstaff Justice of the Peace, will preside over the May 10 hearing. Grodman is a Democrat who has served since 2011.

  2. Wendy “Snowflake” also wants to give politicians privileged status to lie and spread hate and conspiracy theories on privately owned social media platforms, because that is where she (and her “Dear Leader”) live. “Sen. Wendy Rogers pushes bill to give politicians more free speech than you”, https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/ej-montini/2023/04/25/wendy-rogers-bill-give-politicians-more-free-speech/70150336007/

    The Republicans who control the Arizona Legislature apparently aren’t much into the U.S. Constitution.

    And they don’t do the First Amendment much. Or free speech much.

    Otherwise, they wouldn’t be in the process of passing Senate Bill 1106, which, in simple terms, would give political candidates more free speech than regular people.

    What free speech is (and is not)

    Amendment No. 1 of the Constitution doesn’t exactly say that.

    In fact, it doesn’t say that at all.

    GOP lawmakers want to prohibit privately owned social media sites from “deplatforming” a candidate for what the site considers to be inappropriate, unverified or even false statements.

    The only thing that could impact a candidate’s ability to publish is if a post violates the federal Communications Decency Act. Any other action against a candidate’s posting could result in a fine of $250,000 a day for the site.

    Again, do these people Constitution much?

    In America we all get to say what we want in public. That’s free speech.

    But we don’t get to tell the owners of a website or publication or TV station or radio station or social media site that we must be permitted to say anything we want on the media platform they own.

    No one is guaranteed a platform

    The bill is sponsored (no surprise here) by Sen. Wendy Rogers, who said, “This legislation seeks to reinforce the First Amendment, especially for political speech, which, I … from personal experience, can tell you, is a higher bar than even regular speech.”

    Actually, no, it’s not.

    In fact, Rogers has done more to lower the bar for free speech than just about anyone in Arizona, cozying up to white nationalists, spreading QAnon lunacy, backing Alex Jones over the parents of murdered children in Sandy Hook, and even tweeting a photo of herself next to a dead rhino branded with the Star of David.

    Rogers was censured by her colleagues after speaking at a gathering of white supremacists where she called for public hangings and used antisemitic tropes, like calling the president of Ukraine a “globalist puppet” of billionaire George Soros.

    She’s also pushed the racist “great replacement” conspiracy popular with white supremacists, who say white Americans are being replaced by immigrants.

    Rogers gets to spew that garbage because Americans have free speech. But that doesn’t mean the owner of a social media site should be forced to share it.

    Why does Rogers want special treatment?

    She can post her bile on her personal website. Or stage a press conference. Or host a town hall. Or send out a newsletter.

    Free speech doesn’t mean you get to scribble hate messages on my driveway.

    Or, as a lobbyist for social media platforms told the Arizona Senate, “The act compels online businesses to host content they otherwise removed, or restrict even highly objectionable content that is not appropriate for all viewers. And it gives special treatment to certain speakers like political candidates, even ones who spread unlawful, violent or hateful content.”

    Weird that tough talkers like Rogers would whine about needing special treatment, isn’t it?

    I mean, could you imagine that individuals who spend so much time spreading “hateful content” would be such snowflakes?

    … Actually, yeah. I can, too.

  3. Any court in AZ can issue an Injunction Against Harassment regardless of where either party lives. Where the judge erred was to grant this ex parte (it should have been set to a pre-issuance hearing).

    • The Arizona Capitol Times reports, “Arizona Capitol Times responds to injunction against reporter”, https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2023/04/24/arizona-capitol-times-responds-to-injunction-against-reporter/

      We are strongly opposed to the Injunction Against Harassment that State Senator Wendy Rogers obtained against our reporter Camryn Sanchez. Senator Rogers obtained the injunction, ex parte (that is, without informing Ms. Sanchez and without the chance or opportunity for Ms. Sanchez to oppose the petition).

      We intend to challenge this injunction on behalf of Ms. Sanchez because it is baseless and an unconstitutional prior restraint against a reporter investigating public allegations involving the Senator.

      News reporters such as Ms. Sanchez have the right to investigate matters relating to elected officials, which is precisely what Ms. Sanchez has been doing.

      Senator Rogers went far beyond trying to restrict Ms. Sanchez from approaching her multiple residences (which is also well within Ms. Sanchez’s rights)—Senator Rogers also requested that Ms. Sanchez “not be permitted access to the Arizona Senate.” This shows that the petition and injunction were not about the Senator’s personal safety but were about silencing the press in direct contravention of the First Amendment.

      The Arizona Capitol Times and its parent company BridgeTower Media firmly stand behind Ms. Sanchez and her work covering the state Senate and intend to pursue all rights under state and federal law to protect Ms. Sanchez and allow her to perform her duties as a reporter.

      — Michael Gorman, Publisher Arizona Capitol Times

  4. All right, listen up, ladies and gentlemen, our fugitive has been on the run for a number of years. Average foot speed over uneven ground, barring injuries, is 4 miles per hour. That gives us a radius of 250 miles. What I want from each and every one of you is a hard-target search of every gas station, RV park, warehouse, farmhouse, henhouse, outhouse and doghouse in that area. Checkpoints go up at fifteen miles. Your fugitive’s name is Wendy Rogers. Go find her real home.

  5. I’d bet her supporters don’t care where she lives, and since since Rogers beat Sylvia “6000 Year Old Earth” Allen I think I can make this a bet for any amount.

    Who’s in for 100? 1000?

    Tryin’ to save up for a boat.

    Now, Wendy Rogers also wants to end Social Security.

    So they might get a bit upset over her taking away their benefits they spent their entire lives earning.

    In normal times this would have been a real story, in the MAGAT world it’s a nothing-hamberder.

  6. Rogers is also pushing legislation that would allow candidates to lie on social media but allow the rest of us to be punished if we lied. Not hard to figure out which candidates she is trying to protect.

    • Lie, obfuscate, distract and fearmonger is the GQP answer to everything. They have no governing policies, philosophy or theme b/c their base comprises intellectually lacking, morally deficient christo-fascists who are hell bent on making the USA into Taliban West.

Comments are closed.