AZ Policy Wonk

Most Freedom Communications employees probably have never heard of the company’s MBO bonus program, but the higher-ups know all about it.

The program paid out more than $3.7 million to Freedom’s top executives during the past year, not to mention other expenses such as partner distributions, automobile reimbursements, club memberships and, for at least one executive, housing allowances, according to federal bankruptcy filings.

At least 49 Freedom executives, including publishers at various newspapers across the country, dipped into the MBO bonus program during the 12 months leading up to the company’s bankruptcy filing in September.

Freedom CEO Scott Flanders received two MBO payments totaling more than $1.1 million during that time, including a $400,000 bonus only weeks before the company filed bankruptcy. Others, such as Orange County Register Publisher Terry Horne and Community Newspapers Division President Jonathan Segal, received bonuses totaling six-figures.

Horne, who was publisher of the East Valley Tribune for a short time before heading up the Register, received roughly $200,000. Segal, who was in charge of the division that included the Tribune, received approximately $189,000.

Tribune employees were told Nov. 2 that the paper would shut down at the end of the year, following 118 years of publishing in Mesa. Tribune Publisher Julie Moreno received two MBO bonuses that totaled more than $65,000.

In addition to the bonuses, there were other perks to holding a top job in the company. Freedom Broadcasting executive Doreen Dawson-Wade was reimbursed more than $7,000 for club membership payments, and Flanders was given more than $70,000 in housing allowances.

Following is a list of the Freedom executives who received bonuses under the MBO program (dollar figures are rounded to the nearest thousand):

Olaf Frandsen, Freedom Newspapers
$72,000 (four MBO bonuses)
John Greider – Freedom Newspapers
$9,000 (one MBO bonus)
Tyler Patton – Freedom Newspapers
$19,000 (two MBO bonuses)
James Shrader - Freedom Newspapers of Illinois
$27,000 (four MBO bonuses)
Richard Davis - Seymour Tribune Company
$4,000 (one MBO bonus)
Richard Fazzone – Porterville Recorder Company
$30,000 (five MBO bonuses)
James Shine - Lima News
$16,000 (three MBO bonuses)
Jennie Lambert – Gaston Gazette
$53,000 (three MBO bonuses)
Ray Sullivan - Freedom Newspapers of New Mexico
$37,000 (three MBO bonuses)
Stephan Wingert – Daily Press
$60,000 (six MBO bonuses)
Paul Mauney – Times-News Publishing Company
$35,000 (four MBO bonuses)
Patrick Canty – Odessa American
$66,000 (four MBO bonuses)
David Phillips – Missouri Freedom Newspapers
$20,000 (three MBO bonuses)
Kent Kilpatrick – Illinois Freedom Newspapers
$34,000 (two MBO bonuses)
Arthur Foster – Freedom Shelby Star
$34,000 (two MBO bonuses)
Vernon Debolt – Freedom Eastern North Carolina
$31,000 (five MBO bonuses)
P. McKibbon – Freedom Colorado Information
$25,000 (one MBO bonus)
Steven Pope – Freedom Colorado Information
$30,000 (two MBO bonuses)
Julie Moreno – Freedom Arizona Information
$65,000 (two MBO bonuses)
Thomas Conner – Florida Freedom Newspapers
$30,000 (three MBO bonuses)
Karen Hanes - Florida Freedom Newspapers
$63,000 (four MBO bonuses)
Erik Thomason - Florida Freedom Newspapers
$18,000 (one MBO bonus)
David Schmall – Appeal Democrat
$53,000 (five MBO bonuses)
Michael Burns – Freedom Newspapers
$150,000 (four MBO bonuses)
Dianne Ippolito – Freedom Newspapers
$68,000 (four MBO bonuses)
Levi Knapp – Freedom Newspapers
$49,000 (three MBO bonuses)
Teresa Nelson – Freedom Newspapers
$61,000 (three MBO bonuses)
Jonathan Segal – Freedom Newspapers
$189,000 (two MBO bonuses)
Michael Costa – Freedom Broadcasting Tennessee
$25,000 (two MBO bonuses)
Lawrence Beaulieu – Freedom Broadcasting Texas
$26,000 (three MBO bonuses)
Kingsley Kelley – Freedom Broadcasting Oregon
$42,000 (three MBO bonuses
Robert Furlong – Freedom Broadcasting New York
$29,000 (three MBO bonuses)
James Lutton – Freedom Broadcasting Michigan
$33,000 (two MBO bonuses)
Doreen Dawson-Wade - Freedom Broadcasting
$155,000 (two MBO bonuses)
Edward Brien Kennedy – Freedom Broadcasting
$44,000 (two MBO bonuses)
William Rinchik – Freedom Broadcasting
$51,000 (two MBO bonuses)
Katherine Bartzoff – Freedom Communications Inc.
$5,000 (two MBO bonuses)
Douglas Bennett - Freedom Communications Inc.
$199,000 (two MBO bonuses)
Ken Brusic - Freedom Communications Inc.
$40,000 (three MBO bonuses)
Marcy Bruskin - Freedom Communications Inc.
$98,000 (two MBO bonuses)
Scott Flanders - Freedom Communications Inc.
$1,150,000 (two MBO bonuses)
Michael Henry - Freedom Communications Inc.
$41,000 (three MBO bonuses)
Terry Horne - Freedom Communications Inc.
$200,000 (three MBO bonuses)
Mark McEachen - Freedom Communications Inc.
$33,000 (one MBO bonus)
JoAnne Norton - Freedom Communications Inc.
$31,000 (one MBO bonus)
Rachel Sagan - Freedom Communications Inc.
$113,000 (two MBO bonuses)
Richard Sant - Freedom Communications Inc.
$43,000 (four MBO bonuses)
Cathy Taylor - Freedom Communications Inc.
$35,000 (three MBO bonuses)
Nancy Trillo - Freedom Communications Inc.
$79,000 (two MBO bonuses)

It’s a familiar story these days: Top executives reaping disproportionately large salaries and mind-boggling bonuses while executing poor business strategies and laying off hordes of employees.

It’s happened in the finance industry, construction, automobile manufacturing, computer software and beyond. But now, we can count the newspaper industry among them.

Julie Moreno, who became the publisher of the East Valley Tribune in 2008, was paid more than $334,000 in salary, benefits, bonuses and expense reimbursements during the past year, according to Freedom Communications Inc. bankruptcy documents filed Oct. 31.

As part of that package, Moreno was paid a lump sum of $57,949 to relocate to the Valley from Yuma, where she was publisher of Freedom Communications’ second-largest Arizona paper, the Yuma Sun. Yuma, by the way, is 203 miles from Mesa.

She was given two bonuses in early 2009 that totaled $65,456. The first bonus of $37,123 under the company’s MBO program was paid on Feb. 13. The second, for $28,333, was paid on March 13.

The filings detailed Moreno’s compensation from Sept. 1, 2008, through Aug. 31, 2009. During that 12-month period, more than 150 employees were laid off, low-level employees were forced to take unpaid furloughs in addition to 5 percent salary reductions, the 401k match was suspended, and the company’s net revenue plummeted.

Then, on Nov. 2, the 118-year-old paper announced it will cease operations entirely at the end of this year.

The East Valley Tribune’s demise was swift; during the past three years, the company went from an 83,000-circulation daily newspaper that was adding staff and trying to expand its coverage across the Valley to a free paper distributed on racks three days per week.

Since the beginning of 2008, more than 40 percent of its staff was fired, pages of news were eliminated and what was once a proud broadsheet became a tabloid.

The changes resulted in drastically reduced revenue figures. Freedom Communications reported its Arizona operations garnered revenue of $70.2 million in 2007, $53.3 million in 2008 and $17.5 million so far in 2009. The bankruptcy filings also show Freedom’s Arizona division hasn’t been profitable for the past two years.

The worst of times occurred while Moreno was in charge of the paper, but it would be unfair to say she caused the paper’s problems. The economic downturn and increased marketing opportunities on the Internet represent a double-edged sword that has cut the heart out of the newspaper industry.

Newspapers across the country, in a panic, have reconfigured their business plans to meet the needs of the new marketplace. Cutting expenses has been the norm, and wholesale reformation has been tried in some instances.

The East Valley Tribune was one paper that tried an entirely different approach, and it didn’t start under Moreno’s leadership. I should know – I was there.

In April 2007, former Arizona Republic executive Terry Horne replaced longtime East Valley Tribune publisher Karen Wittmer. While Wittmer was respected by the staff, there was great fanfare when Horne took over. He was hard-charging, spoke frankly and, in a way, had declared war on his former employer. It was exactly what we wanted to hear.

Before he took over, Horne tasked everyone on staff to list what each of us thought the paper was doing wrong and what should be done to improve it. Some of us wrote lengthy responses. I was a mid-level editor at the paper at that time, and my response was eight pages long. A reporter on my team wrote 12 pages.

Several of us noted that the paper was focusing too much energy and money on trying to retain its position in Scottsdale and Tempe, while the Republic appeared to be devoting far more resources to those areas. We suggested redirecting our resources to our stronghold in Mesa and Gilbert, as well as northwestern Pinal County and the eastern cities in Maricopa County, where the Republic was almost non-existent.

Horne, in one of his first acts as publisher, called a series of group meetings to discuss our share of the market in various cities as compared to the Republic’s. He produced compelling figures that indicated we were, indeed, losing the battle in Scottsdale and Tempe. And, frankly, we weren’t doing so hot in some areas of Mesa. In short, our circulation was falling in almost every area.

Weeks later, he unveiled a plan to recreate the paper. The daily edition was going to be distributed free and we were going to publish fewer news pages. In fact, rumor had it we were going to stop publishing the larger broadsheet editions and switch to a tabloid format.

Despite these landmark changes, most of the staff was excited. We believed in Horne. We thought it would work. After all, Horne knew what the Republic knew, and he was ready to do battle.

He must have impressed the corporate folks as well; a few months later they promoted him to president and publisher of Freedom Communications’ flagship paper, the Orange County Register. He was replaced by Moreno, who also served as regional vice president of Freedom’s Pacific Region.

Moreno told me during an interview on Nov. 4 that she was largely an observer during the time Horne and other Freedom executives discussed the new strategies. But she said she believed the plan was solid and she was on board to implement it when her time came. In fact, she still believes it was a good strategy.

“I think that, directionally, the changes make sense, given what we face here in this particular market,” she said. “What we’re dealing with is an economy that has presented challenges for all of us. It becomes very difficult to separate what might be an impact from the model from what might be happening in the broader economy in general. But, directionally, I don’t believe the model was wrong.”

Wrong or not, the concept didn’t work.

During a meeting in October 2008, Moreno announced the elimination of 142 positions, saying “We must turn the boat while we have the opportunity to do that. … We have to position the Tribune to be part of the community for the long term.”

On March 20, a week after Moreno was given a bonus of more than $28,000, the company forced remaining employees to take unpaid furloughs.

That day, Freedom CEO Scott Flanders said: “Freedom continues to generate positive cash flow, and we see the furlough program as a sound business and financial move to help weather the present severe economic conditions that we believe will improve by year-end.”

Conditions didn’t improve. On April 13, more layoffs were announced and the paper transitioned to three-day publication.

Moreno said the layoffs and, later, the decision to close the paper were “gut-wrenching.”
“You never want to see the day happen, because you’re impacting your work force,” she said. “And with the newspaper, it’s not just a job for a lot of people. It’s an organization with a unique identity in the community. When you tell people you work for the newspaper you get, in some circles, a lot of respect for that. For associates who work here, they’re extremely loyal. It’s very difficult. And you know you’re leaving a void for your readers. Words cannot describe how that feels. It’s just not a good day.”

Moreno refused to discuss her compensation package.

“I’m really not at liberty to discuss my compensation,” she said. “It’s not something I care to discuss at this point.

In the end, hundreds of people will lose their jobs as a result of the Tribune’s demise. But Moreno is not one of them. She will continue on with Freedom in her executive role.

“At the time being, I have a dual role with freedom. I also serve as pacific region vice president. I will likely continue with Freedom in some role,” she said. “Beyond that, I don’t have a necessarily clear assignment at this point.”

Neither do the reporters and other staffers, many of whom own homes here and have raised their families with meager salaries during the past several decades.

Full disclosure: I worked at the Tribune from the beginning of 2006 until December 2007. I left voluntarily to take a job as managing editor of the Arizona Capitol Times. I do, however, have friends who were laid off after I left the Tribune.

Freedom Communications has failed to muster an acceptable offer from anyone interested in buying the East Valley Tribune, and it’s planning to shut down the Mesa-based newspaper at the end of the year.

It’s been a tough road for the employees, who have tried to keep afloat a paper that hasn’t turned a profit for some time. Layoffs became the norm for the past two years, but it apparently was too little, too late for a paper that only a few years ago was boasting a circulation of about 100,000.

The newspaper employees received word this morning that the paper would stop publishing entirely on Dec. 31. That means even more journalists, advertising staff, press operators, etc. will be out of work soon. The paper now employs about 140 people.

It’s a product of the economic downturn, but more precisely it’s about an inability to generate revenue as more readers turn to the Internet for their news. The paper tried desperately to provide hyper-local coverage (neighborhood-type stuff) for East Valley communities, but was constantly stretched too thin to cover adequately all of the stuff happening in the cities of Tempe, Chandler, Apache Junction, Mesa, Gilbert, Scottsdale, and beyond.

The paper also suffered from an identity crisis; it couldn’t figure out where to put its limited resources. While I worked there, executives and top-level editors would argue the merits of keeping open an office in Scottsdale, where it faced serious competition from the Arizona Republic. But it went beyond that; questions loomed whether it should cover Tempe, where it also faced territorial issues with the Republic, or focus more on the outlying eastern parts of Maricopa County and northwestern Pinal County. And what about Mesa, which had been the paper’s stronghold? Should it constrict its operations to its home city, or should it protect the territory it held in other areas?

In the end, it was down to a few core zip codes. Literally. There was a study done on which zip codes had the most readers, and which ones held the most advertisers. Then, word would come down from on high that those were the areas that should be covered by the newsroom.

Myriad practical problems arose from these edicts. It might sound like a sound strategic move, but it was difficult beyond imagination to determine how to cover news that would impact a specific zip code, while ignoring other issues that might be a big deal only a few blocks away. Not only that, but the strategy kept changing - almost weekly.

I was a mid-level editor there for almost two years, and I left in 2007 to take a job as managing editor of the Arizona Capitol Times. Things weren’t going very smoothly when I was on board, and it was clear the paper was headed for big trouble. But I had no idea it would be caput in only a few short years.

It’s ironic that some of the best journalism in the nation has come from that paper, and only a year after receiving a Pulitzer Prize, it would announce its demise. It’s also ironic that the people who were best known for their reporting acumen were laid off in the first couple of rounds of reductions. The paper got rid of many prize-winning writers, or let them slip away, while keeping journalists who were straight out of college. Cheaper, I guess.

Many talented people still work at the Tribune - a few editors who survived the cuts come to mind. And a few of the writers still on staff have considerable skill. But the bulk of the layoffs impacted the highest-paid, most tenured reporters on staff. I can’t help but think that had something to do with the lack of interest among readers during the past year, while circulation numbers and advertising revenue plummeted.

So, now what? Where will East Valley residents get their news? Will a couple of small papers crop up to replace the Tribune? Or will readers who want to know what’s happening in their neighborhood be relegated to blogs?

If the Republic wasn’t in such poor shape itself, I would say this is an opportunity for great expansion of one of the nation’s largest newspapers. But layoffs have impacted the Republic as well, and so have diminished revenues. It will be interesting to see how the behemoth will react. I suspect it will try to take some more territory. But the level of resources it devotes to the adventure will probably be limited.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio received a high approval rating in the most recent Cronkite/Eight poll.

Sixty-one percent of Maricopa County voters said they approve or strongly approve of his job performance. Thirty-four percent disapprove or strongly disapprove.

It’s one of those love-him-or-hate-him kinds of things, as most voters logged in with a “strongly” response. Thirty-nine percent said they strongly approve of the job he’s doing, while 22 percent strongly disapproved. Four percent said they had no opinion.

The poll was conducted Oct. 22-25 by the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University and Eight/KAET.

Also, county voters disagreed overwhelmingly with the federal government’s decision to strip the sheriff’s department of a portion of its 287(g) agreement that allowed deputies to enforce U.S. immigration law during crime-suppression sweeps. Sixty percent disagreed with the decision, while 36 percent agreed. Again, four percent said they had no opinion.

An analysis that was released along with the poll results noted, however, that “Republicans, people with lower levels of formal education, and social conservatives were most supportive of the sheriff; Democrats, voters with higher levels of formal education, and social moderates were least supportive.”

The poll also gauged voters’ approval ratings for Treasurer Dean Martin, Secretary of State Ken Bennett, Attorney General Terry Goddard, Gov. Jan Brewer and Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas.

Not only that, but respondents were asked about swine flu and national health care reform. Full results are below.

The statewide sample of 652 registered voters was 37 percent Republican, 34 percent Democrat and 29 percent Independent. Fifty-nine percent of the interviews were conducted in Maricopa County, 17 percent in Pima County and 24 percent in Arizona’s other counties. Forty-nine percent of the voters interviewed were men and 51 percent are women. The sampling error for the statewide sample survey is plus or minus 3.8 percent. The sampling error for the Maricopa County sample, which included 389 registered voters, is plus or minus 5.0 percent.

Question wording:

First, please tell me if you approve or disapprove of the job the following Arizona state-level officials are doing. If you don’t feel you know enough about how they are doing to have an opinion, just tell me and I’ll go on to the next one. Let’s start with Governor Jan Brewer. Do you strongly approve, approve, disapprove or strongly disapprove of the job she is doing?

 Overall / Among those with an opinion
 strongly approve    2%     2%
 approve   37%   48%
 disapprove   30%   39%
 strongly disapprove    9%   11%
 don’t know/no opinion 22%   

How about the job Terry Goddard is doing as attorney general?  Do you strongly approve, approve, disapprove or strongly disapprove of the job he is doing?

Overall / Among those with an opinion
 strongly approve  11%   15%
 approve   44%   61%
 disapprove   13%   18%
 strongly disapprove    4%     6%
 don’t know/no opinion 28%  

What about the job Ken Bennett is doing as secretary of state?  Do you strongly approve, approve, disapprove or strongly disapprove of the job he is doing?

 Overall / Among those with an opinion
 strongly approve    1%     3%
 approve   19%   61%
 disapprove     9%   30%
 strongly disapprove    2%     6%
 don’t know/no opinion 69%  

How about the job Dean Martin is doing as state treasurer?  Do you strongly approve, approve, disapprove or strongly disapprove of the job he is doing?

 Overall / Among those with an opinion
 strongly approve    7%   14%
 approve   25%   50%
 disapprove    15%   31%
 strongly disapprove    3%     5%
 don’t know/no opinion 50%   

How important do you think it is for Congress to vote this year on a bill to reform our health care system? Do you think it is very important, important, not very important, or not at all important?

 very important   48%
 important   19%
 not very important  11%
 not at all important  19%
 don’t know/no opinion   3%

Would you favor or oppose creating a public health insurance option administered by the federal government that would compete with plans offered by private insurance companies?

favor    44%
oppose    49%
don’t know/no opinion   7%

Now, turning to the swine flu, when a vaccination becomes readily available in Arizona, will you get a swine flu vaccination?

 yes    41%
 no    54%
 don’t know/no opinion   5%

Regardless of how you feel about getting a swine flu vaccination, have you had or will you have a regular flu shot this year?
yes    58%
no    41%
don’t know/no opinion   1%

IF MARICOPA COUNTY:  Please tell me if you approve or disapprove of the job the following Maricopa County officials are doing. Again, if you don’t have enough information about how they are doing to rate them, just tell me and I’ll go to the next person. Let’s start with County Attorney Andrew Thomas. Do you strongly approve, approve, disapprove or strongly disapprove (9%/14) of the job he is doing?

 Overall / Among those with an opinion
 strongly approve  12%   17%
 approve   32%   47%
 disapprove   14%   22%
 strongly disapprove    9%   14%
 don’t know/no opinion 33%  

IF MARICOPA COUNTY:  How about the job Sheriff Joe Arpaio is doing.  Do you strongly approve, approve, disapprove or strongly disapprove of the job he is doing?

 Overall / Among those with an opinion
 strongly approve  39%   41%
 approve   22%   23%
 disapprove   13%   14%
 strongly disapprove  22%   22%
 don’t know/no opinion   4%  

IF MARICOPA COUNTY:  Under an agreement with the federal government, the Maricopa County sheriff’s department has had the authority to arrest illegal immigrants in the community and to screen the immigration status of people booked into the county jail. Recently, the federal government restricted Sheriff Arpaio to ONLY checking the immigration status of people when they are checked into jail. Do you agree or disagree with the decision to limit Arpaio’s immigration authority?

 agree    36% 
 disagree   60% 
 don’t know/no opinion   4%

It took about two weeks, but Sheriff Joe has figured out where he got the list of criteria to detain illegal immigrants.

The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office released a statement earlier this week that noted he will continue to use a set of indicators - including an inability to speak English, unusual appearance and the location where people are stopped - to detain people who might be illegal immigrants. The media release sent out on Oct. 21 stated that the source of those indicators was actually a training manual used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents - not federal law, as he had previously said.

The media release started out this way: “Several recent televised interviews of the sheriff have mischaracterized and confused the context of the explanation he has given of his
office’s practices and procedures. This should set the record straight.”

Arpaio noted that his office doesn’t target people of any specific nationality, and that his deputies don’t rely on any one indicator before detaining a suspected illegal immigrant. Rather, he stated that his office must have reasonable suspicion that a state law has been violated, which can lead to follow-up interrogation to develop additional indicators or facts to support detainment.

Basically, the idea is that he is going to continue using the indicators below as a tool to detain suspects:

-Does the detainee have a thick accent or not comprehend English

-Whether the individual had identification

-Is the location of the stop a known illegal alien locale

-Is the detainee’s appearance unusual or out of place in the specific locale

-Does the detainee appear to be in transit or recently traveling

-Did the detainee’s demeanor change (i.e. “freeze or take flight”) when first spotted by the officer

-Did the vehicle seem overcrowded or ride heavily

-Did the passengers in the vehicle slouch down, slump or attempt to avoid being detected in the vehicle

The handbook was used when local law enforcement officers were trained by ICE to be de-facto immigration agents. But the press release also mentioned (in the last paragraph) that the 100 MCSO deputies trained to take part in the program will have to turn over their ICE credentials soon.

MCSO apparently used these criteria during the crime-suppression sweep in Phoenix on Oct. 16-17. Sixty-six people were arrested during the sweep, including 30 illegal immigrants. Of those, 19 were turned over to ICE.

The only difference between that sweep and those that had taken place previously is that MCSO had to call ICE to come and arrest the illegal immigrants who had committed no state crimes - the sheriff’s deputies had lost the authority to do so when the Department of Homeland Security revoked part of Arpaio’s 287(g) agreement earlier this month.

If ICE continues to be on-call, then not much will change in terms of Arpaio’s ability to enforce immigration laws. But in a previous sweep, ICE had not responded when MCSO called for assistance, and now ICE says it will do so as time and resources allow. Priorities also will dictate their response; if they’re busy arresting violent criminals, they might not be available to assist Arpaio when his deputies detain people who’s only crime was being in the country without permission.

Also during the most recent crime sweep, federal investigators were present to see just how the state laws were being enforced and whether Sheriff Joe was condoning the use of racial profiling to stop people and interrogate them. The investigators were posing as journalists, which means they likely were carrying notepads, using recorders and cameras, and probably, based on my experience in newsrooms, dressed shabily.

Although the criteria for detaining people on the streets, as outlined in the ICE handbook that MCSO cited, are similar in some ways to the non-existent federal law to which Arpaio had mistakenly referred, it’s not nearly as blunt in approach. (See previous blog post http://azcapitoltimes.com/azpolicywonk/2009/10/14/sheriff-joe-a-non-existent-us-law-and-the-next-crime-sweep/)

Rather than cite the clothing people are wearing as a reason for detainment, the handbook explains that people can be stopped if they appear to be out of place. Instead of citing speech patterns that indicate foreign citizenship, the handbook explains that non-comprehension of English is sufficient.

Clearly, there is a slight but important difference between the two sets of criteria.

And there is disparity, if only in form and not substance, between citing something as U.S. law and citing something that’s in a training manual. Sheriff Joe should have known what the source was before going on TV and referring to a federal law that doesn’t exist.

The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office just released the following statement. Rather than bloviate, I just pasted it below. But I will say it’s one of the first times I’ve seen his office admit a mistake.

Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 4:27 PM
Subject: News Conference Update

Last week during a news conference discussing the Sheriff’s agreement with ICE and the 287g agreement, Sheriff Arpaio made reference to and distributed a document that is an interpretation of Title 8 of the U.S. Code regarding federal immigration laws and the authority to enforce those laws.

Over recent weeks, Sheriff’s Office staff has been conducting research on the issue of federal immigration laws and how the Sheriff’s Office will be affected by the loss of the law enforcement portion of the 287g program.

During that research, the Sheriff’s Office has referred to title 8 of the U.S. code as well as a multitude of interpretations of federal law. This form containing an interpretation was inadvertently given to the Sheriff with an incorrect citation of a certain section of federal law as an example of how to pursue the federal law.

Although the citation and language does not appear in the U.S. code, title 8 does exist and the Sheriff’s Office believes that it still has the authority under federal law to detain illegal aliens during the course of their duties.

That section of title 8 the Sheriff’s Office intended to reference is attached to this e-mail.  

Here’s the link: http://azcapitoltimes.com/wp-files/pdfs/title-8.pdf

“You said some nasty things about me. I take it that way.”

 

That’s how my conversation with Sheriff Joe started on Oct. 14. He was offended that I had said on television that he was trying to use a non-existent federal law to justify the continuation of his crime-suppression sweeps.

 

After watching Arpaio on the Glenn Beck Show and CNN with Rick Sanchez last week, I was somewhat puzzled that he was upset with me particularly. Seems like those two national personalities beat him up quite a bit more than I did. And I was only on a local program, the Horizon Journalists Roundtable.

 

Indeed, I had called him out for citing a law that seems to exist only in the minds of anti-illegal immigration groups. In fact, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials, the document he has been citing during press conferences and national TV spots has no place in federal code. In other words, it doesn’t exist.

 

It all started a week ago when the U.S. Department of Homeland Security reconstructed an agreement with local law enforcement that essentially stripped the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office of its power to enforce illegal immigration violations under the 287(g) program. While the new agreement allows Arpaio and other sheriffs to check the immigration status of those who are arrested for other crimes, it was intended to stop him from detaining people on the street to check whether they are in the country illegally.

 

After the new 287(g) agreement was struck, Arpaio called a press conference to blast the feds and to say that he would continuing business as usual. In fact, he said he was planning to do another sweep in two weeks. Now, he says he’s going to do the sweep on Friday.

 

But during the press conference on Oct. 6 reporters asked Arpaio what authority he would use to continue rounding up illegal immigrants on the streets. He said there are a couple of state laws that permit it and other federal statutes that provide that type of authority. He then passed out a document that he said was a federal law that allows his agency to “detain an individual for a brief warrantless interrogation where circumstances create a reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegally present in the U.S.”

 

The document Arpaio personally passed out at a press conference and said was federal statute can be found here: http://azcapitoltimes.com/wp-files/pdfs/section8.pdf

 

The document, at first glance, appeared to be taken from a section of U.S. Code. At the top of the page, it listed a title and chapter numbers, as well as references to subsections.

 

But about midway through the text, it outlined a set of circumstances that justify such “brief warrantless interrogations,” and that’s where things started to get odd. Here’s an excerpt: “Specific facts constituting a reasonable suspicion include evasive, nervous, or erratic behavior; dress or speech indicating foreign citizenship; and presence in an area known to contain a concentration of illegal aliens.”

 

Reporter Jeremy Duda brought the document to my attention, and both of us were a skeptical that the federal government would essentially grant authority to interrogate people on the basis of what they were wearing, or their speech patterns. One friend of mine jokingly asked whether a mariachi suit would justify questioning. And what about the reference to an area known to contain a concentration of illegal aliens? Could that be taken to mean Arizona in general?

 

So Jeremy dug a little deeper. He read through the section of code that Arpaio’s document referenced (Section 8, USC 1324). He couldn’t find any citation of that text. He continued searching records, and later asked ICE officials, immigration attorneys and the Department of Justice to clarify whether that was, as Arpaio had said, included in federal law. Everyone said it wasn’t.

 

Another editor and I read through actual U.S. code and also couldn’t find any reference to the text of the document Arpaio had handed out. We were perplexed.

 

Jeremy followed up with a story on Oct. 7 that outlined these developments, which can be found here: http://azcapitoltimes.com/blog/2009/10/06/arpaio-blasts-feds-vows-to-continue-immigration-enforcement/

 

Then, after our story was published (there was also an item in that afternoon’s Yellow Sheet Report) and a subsequent commentary was written in the East Valley Tribune, Arpaio cited the document as law on both CNN and FOX. Rick Sanchez was incredulous. Perhaps surprisingly, so was Glenn Beck.

 

Beck asked Arpaio to point to the specific law. Arpaio replied: “If local law enforcement comes across some people who have an erratic or scared or whatever … they’re worried, and if they have their speech, what they look like - if they look like they just came from another country, we can take care of that situation.”

 

Beck asked if that was profiling, and noted that the federal government doesn’t allow profiling.

 

Arpaio’s again pointed to the non-existent federal law, saying “It’s in there. It’s in there.”

 

On CNN, Arpaio told Sanchez that the revocation of the 287(g) agreement really doesn’t mean anything. He said it was just a contract, but “it’s OK, I’m still going to enforce the human smuggling.”

 

Sanchez asked how the sheriff and his deputies know if someone they stop on the street is in the country illegally.

 

“It has to do with their conduct, what type of clothes they’re wearing, their speech … a lot of variables involved,” Arpaio said. Questioned further about how clothing can determine a person’s status, Arpaio said, “You look at the federal law. The federal law specifies, the speech the clothes the environment the erratic behavior, it’s right in the law.”

 

An online search for the text Arpaio was citing revealed that the document existed - but not in federal code. It was plastered all over the websites of anti-illegal immigration groups.

 

One of the groups that had published the text, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, noted that it was only an analysis of federal law and offered a disclaimer that it was not to be used as a substitute for actual legal advice.

 

The website showing the overview published by the Federation for American Immigration Reform can be found here: http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersbcdd

 

So, this morning when I had a chance to interview Arpaio about all that had occurred, he insisted at first that the document was taken directly from U.S. Code. He said ICE had confirmed that the document was valid.

 

But after further discussion about our findings, Arpaio took a step back. He acknowledged that the document might not be part of federal law. He said, “I thought it was a law. I don’t know what you call it.”

 

He went on to say that it really doesn’t matter if it’s law or if it’s just an analysis, and said he has plenty of authority to continue the crime-suppression sweeps.

 

“I still think there’s a federal law out there that gives me the authority to do this,” he said. “I might not have the right one, but there is one out there.”

 

It’s still not clear what will happen when Arpaio attempts to conduct another sweep because ICE officials have been quiet about how they’ll react and Arpaio says he’ll take the illegal immigrants to Border Patrol if he has to.

 

“When they (ICE) won’t take them, I’ll take them to Border Patrol,” he said. “So let’s see what happens now. How can you tell Border Patrol that you can’t take them? If mine are illegal and they don’t take them, are they going to take the other ones that they find?”

 

We might not have to wait long for the answer; the next sweep is scheduled to happen in two days.

A report by the Goldwater Institute indicates potential problems with the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program at Sky Harbor International Airport and specific instances in which the system allegedly was gamed by Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox.

Wilcox, a Hispanic woman who owns the Phoenix restaurant El Portal, also is a partial owner of a Chili’s franchise in Terminal 4 at Sky Harbor, according to the report by the Goldwater Institute’s investigative reporter Mark Flatten, who conducted a three-month probe into the concession contracts at the airport.

The report, released for publication Oct. 14, outlined a series of violations of federal guidelines and city policy. It stated that Wilcox obtained a $450,000 start-up loan from Host International that was to be repaid through profits from the restaurant, which is a violation of city policy. Host International holds the master concessions contract at Terminal 4.

The 24-page report also stated that Wilcox hasn’t played a role in the day-to-day operations of the franchise, which goes against federal rules for programs such as the DBE. Yet she “used her race and status as the owner of a disadvantaged business to land a lucrative concession deal,” according to the report.

“You’ve got to ask yourself if these programs are achieving the ends that they were created to achieve,” Flatten said during an interview with reporters Oct. 13.

Wilcox told the Goldwater Institute that she refuses to comment on personal matters.

Clint Bolick, an attorney on staff at the Goldwater Institute, said programs such as the DBE generally are not upheld by courts. He said the Institute considered filing a lawsuit, but the city claims to have suspended the program. Also, there is an effort afoot to put a measure on the 2010 ballot that would end preferential treatment for minority- and women-owned businesses seeking to obtain government contracts in Arizona.

“These programs are seriously questionable from a legal standpoint,” Bolick said.  

When pressed whether the report was intended to highlight potential abuses of the program or call into question the validity of the program itself, Flatten said “It’s on multiple levels.”

“There are two levels of this,” said Flatten, who was a veteran reporter for the East Valley Tribune before taking the job at Goldwater earlier this year. “Is this a good program? Is it meeting the needs Congress intended?

“Even if you conclude this is a good program, is it being run the way it’s supposed to?”

To read the report and supplemental material, go to www.GoldwaterInstitute.org/HighFliers

I realize this is blatant self-promotion, but I can’t help myself - I’m just so darn proud of our staff.

It was a record-breaking year for the Arizona Capitol Times - at least in terms of awards won at the annual Arizona Newspaper Association’s journalism contest.

Foremost, we won first place in the general excellence category for small non-daily newspapers. Actually, we tied for first with the San Pedro Valley News-Sun.

Considering we don’t submit any entries for sports, sports columns or sports photos, we’re pretty happy about our overall performance (the general excellence category is based on everything from headline writing to investigative reporting to photos to sports coverage). But we have decided to emphasize our coverage of the House-Senate softball game next year so we could compete in the sports categories. After all, we have two former sports journalists on staff.

The paper itself won five additional awards, including first place in both newswriting and reporting excellence and community service/journalistic achievement.

As for the individual awards, we took first-place in seven categories. Reporter Luige del Puerto took two first-place awards, and photographer Bill Coates was first in two photo categories.

One highlight was that we swept all three awards in the enterprise reporting category. Jeremy Duda took first for his work on the Brewer transition to governor, Christian Palmer took second for a story about the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office called “Locking them up, but at what cost,” and Jim Small took third for a story that outlined how big-money donors had avoided contributing to the Arizona Republican Party during the 2008 election cycle.

Our headline writers also cleaned up. Copy Editor Don Harris earned first- and third-place awards for headlines, and I squeezed between with second place. I must admit that one of our reporters, Christian Palmer, helped write the headline “Dirty Bond Money” for which I received an award. In hindsight, I should have played off the “007″ movies and gone with “Bond, Dirty Bond.”

The staff at the Arizona Newspaper Association did a great job with the event, which was held Oct. 10 at Arizona State University’s Cronkite building. It’s one of the only times journalists from across Arizona get a chance to hang out together, unless we run into each other at the bar.

We also had a great year in terms of national awards. We won in 10 categories for the National Newspaper Association contest earlier this year, including three first-place showings for best health care story, best local news coverage and best breaking news story.

Following are the results from both contests:

Arizona Newspaper Association

Overall Newspaper Awards (circulation less than 3,500)

1^st, Reporting & Newswriting Excellence

2^nd, Departmental News & Copywriting Excellence

3^rd, Editorial Page Excellence

1^st, Community Service/Journalistic Achievement

3^rd, Newspaper web site

 

Individual Awards

1^st, Best Headline, Don Harris, Land-locked out: Dispute with state strands homeowners

2^nd, Best Headline, Matt Bunk, Dirty bond money: AZ judge cleared to probe suspicious payments

3^rd, Best Headline, Don Harris, The biggest elections nobody watches

1^st, Best News Story, Luige del Puerto, Amid fiscal crisis, lawmakers buy new computers

3^rd, Best News Story, Jeremy Duda, Arizona 0-for-4: Echoes of Goldwater as McCain falls to Obama

1^st, Best Sustained Coverage or Series, Luige del Puerto, Religion and Politics

1^st, Investigative Reporting, Jim Small, SCA contributions

1^st, Enterprise Reporting, Jeremy Duda, Jan Brewer transitions to governor

2^nd, Enterprise Reporting, Christian Palmer, Locking ‘em up, but at what cost?

3^rd, Enterprise Reporting, Jim Small, Big-money donors sidestepped state GOP in 2008

1^st, Best News Photograph, Bill Coates, State prison hotshot crew fights fires in Arizona

2^nd, Best News Photograph, Bill Coates, Education advocates and a state senator protest

1^st, Best Feature Photo Layout or Story, Bill Coates, State prison hotshot crew fights fires in Arizona

National Newspaper Association

Overall Awards
1st place, Best Local News Coverage, circulation less than 3,000
2nd place, Best Special News, Sports or Feature Section or Edition, Focus on Courts and Corrections

 

Individual Awards
Honorable mention, Best Feature Story, “Land-locked out,” Jim Small
2nd place, Best Feature Story, “Prison inmates feel heat,” Bill Coates
2nd place, Best Business Feature Story, “Losing sight,” Bill Coates
3rd place, Best Health Story, “Held Blameless,” Anjanette Riley
1st place, Best Health Story, “Still fighting Valley Fever,” Bill Coates
Honorable mention, Best Health Story, “McCain plan adds to uninsured,” Anjanette Riley
2nd place, Best Education/Literacy Story, “Crunch time looms for English learner program,” Jim Small
1st place, Best Breaking News Story, “Sheriff’s captain fined $315K,” Jim Small

The Democratic National Committee has decided it’s time to call out Sen. Jon Kyl for his statements on the health care legislation.

The “Call ‘Em Out” campaign now has three targets - all of them high-profile Republicans. The first two were U.S. Rep. John Boehner and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Boehner is the House minority leader, and Pawlenty is rumored to be a future presidential candidate. Kyl is the Senate minority whip.

Democrats have called out Kyl for four specific statements he’s made regarding how the health care proposal would impact Americans.

No. 1: Democrats dispute the idea that government would not be put in control of health care.

No. 2: They dispute the statement that health insurance reform would cut Medicare and lead to rationing.

No 3.: They say it’s false that health insurance reform would be hugely costly.

No. 4: And they take issue with the idea that comparative effectiveness research would lead to rationing and denial of care.

Each of the arguments and background is long and tedious, so I’m not going to go into it all here. But you can read the full text of the Democrat charges at http://www.democrats.org/page/content/callemoutkyl. There’s also a YouTube video that can be accessed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBdRs7VRu8c.

Kyl’s spokesman Andrew Wilder noted in an e-mail this morning that he hesitates to dignify the attacks with a response. But he did anyway. He stated that “Slick graphics don’t hide the fact that the Democratic National Committee has to misrepresent the facts of their government-run health care takeover to the American people in order to get it passed.” He also pointed out that “support for ObamaCare has sunk to a new all-time low of only 41 percent in favor.” He cited a recent poll by Rasmussen, which can be found at http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

To see what Kyl says about health care and what he wants to do on the issue, check out the following recent columns the senator has authored:

http://kyl.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=318341

http://kyl.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=317730 

http://kyl.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=316972 

http://kyl.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=315950