AZ Policy Wonk

A list of Desert Divas clients posted on Greg Patterson’s website is authentic - we got our own copy from the Phoenix Police Department late this afternoon.

It includes some notable names, including one matching prominent Arizona lobbyist Mike Williams.

That doesn’t mean Williams has committed any crime, nor does it mean the name on the list certainly belongs to Mike Williams the lobbyist. After all there were two Mike Williamses listed (one had a Chandler address), and there are more than 100 people in the Valley who share that name.

Yet the list we obtained, in Excel format, does include the name “Mike Williams,” along with the former address of Williams & Associates on Central. But nobody has prosecuted the lobbyist, and he denied using the services of the prostitution ring that was busted last year.

In fact, there were thousands of names listed on the spreadsheet released by the Phoenix police, including a “Charles Jensen.” There happens to be someone named Charles Jensen who is the founder of the GOP group “Politics on the Rocks” - the “Politics on the Rocks” Jensen has denied involvement as well. 

Williams, the lobbyist, said this morning (Sept. 28) that he hadn’t heard of the list of alleged “johns” until he received a call from the Yellow Sheet. He then said the Mike Williams on the list wasn’t him.

His attorney, Mel McDonald, added via e-mail that it was factually impossible for lobbyist Mike Williams to have had contact with one of the Desert Divas on June 18, 2007, which is the date the document cites Williams allegedly had. McDonald noted that Williams was in Seattle with his family on that date.

Plus, both McDonald and the lobbyist Mike Williams pointed out that someone else simply could have used Williams’ name and business address.

The whole thing started last year when the police busted Desert Divas and then released the original list of names without any other identifying material, which is really a bad deal for people who share a name with someone on the list. When the list of names was first released, the police should have included enough information to exonerate innocents with the same name. The addresses of the clients. Dates of contact with the Desert Divas. Something. Anything.

But then things heated up on Sept. 24 when Patterson posted the police spreadsheet, this time one that included addresses and other material, on his website, EspressoPundit.com. Patterson said he received it with the help of Phoenix City Councilman Sal DiCiccio.

During the weekend, word of the appearance of the name Mike Williams was working its way through the Capitol community. Another blogger, Ted Prezelski of rumromanismrebellion.net, pointed out that the name Mike Williams was on the list.

Those reports prompted Yellow Sheet to start digging frantically to obtain the spreadsheet directly from the police to verify whether what Patterson had posted was authentic. After spending all morning and afternoon arguing for release of the public record, it was handed over in CD format at about 4 p.m.

Yellow Sheet posted a story shortly thereafter, including the spreadsheet list and full interviews with Jensen and Williams. To read the full scoop go to http://www.yellowsheetreport.com/home.htm/page/login.loginSecureWrapper

As for Charles Jensen, of “Politics on the Rocks,” he told Yellow Sheet that he never used the Desert Divas service and said he will eventually be exonerated. “It is 100% false,” he said.

Jensen said he, too, was out of state when the alleged incident had occurred and that he has the documentation to prove it.

Still, Jensen’s group is taking a hit; State Treasurer Dean Martin was scheduled to speak at one of the “Politics on the Rock” events, but he cancelled when word spread that the name Charles Jensen was on the police spreadsheet.

It appears Sen. John McCain is viewed by Arizona voters only slightly more favorably than President Obama, at least when it comes to the percentage of people who think the two federal officials are doing an “excellent” or “good” job.

A new Rocky Mountain Poll by the Behavior Research Center shows McCain with a 48 percent approval rating, while Obama’s is at 47 percent. The poll was conducted among 800 Arizonans (629 were registered voters) from Sept. 9-18. The results were released Sept. 28. The poll has a margin of error of 3.5 percent.

Though both officials had a favorable rating overall - the percentage of those who viewed Obama’s job performance as “poor” or “very poor” was much higher than McCain’s. Thirty-two percent said Obama was doing a bad job, while 21 percent said they disapprove of McCain’s job performance.

The Behavior Research Center somehow took this to mean that the results reflect “the fierce attacks from the GOP toward nearly all aspects of (Obama’s) policies,” according to an analysis released along with the poll.

Those who wrote the analysis noted a deep partisan divide, and provided numbers to back that up. But it’s not clear how they made the leap that in Obama’s case it meant that people view him disfavorably due to Republican attacks.

“It also appears that these attacks have been most successful among voters over 55 years of age, middle income voters and Caucasians,” according to the analysis. “On the other hand, groups in which Mr. Obama remains favorably evaluated by a majority include ethnic minorities (especially Hispanics) both lower and upper income voters and voters under the age of 55.”

Those who disapproved of Obama’s performance were mostly Republicans (58 percent said he was doing a poor or very poor job). Many independents also viewed him unfavorably (31 percent said he was doing a poor or very poor job). Among Democrats, only 9 percent said he was doing poorly.

The results weren’t as partisan for McCain, although he did, of course, fare better among Republicans. Thirty-eight percent of Democrats and 28 percent of independents said he was doing a bad job. Thirteen percent of Republicans disapproved of his performance.

The pollsters also surveyed the job performance of Sen. Jon Kyl, whose results were similar to McCain’s. Kyl registered a 44 percent approval rating, while tallying 24 percent in the poor or very poor categories. A further breakdown of his results are below.

The wild card, once again, is the designation “fair” that is used in Rocky Mountain Polls. It’s sort of a murky designation that I interpret as those who are undecided about a politician’s performance; they could be swayed either way, or they are not paying close attention. McCain registered a 31 percent in the fair category, Kyl was at 32 percent, and Obama had a 21 percent.

It’s interesting that 94 percent of those polled had opinions on McCain and Obama, while only 75 percent responded for Kyl. It appears the Senate minority whip still doesn’t carry the same name recognition of his Senate counterpart in their home state. Perhaps a run for president (successful or not) would change that.

Poll Question: “Would you say that (public official’s name) is doing an excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor job in office?” 

                         Excellent/Good     Fair     Poor/Very Poor

President Barack Obama   
All voters                    47%                 21%             32%
Democrats                  75%                 16%              9%
independents              46%                 23%             31%
Republicans                17%                 25%             58%

U.S. Sen. John McCain
All Voters                    48%                31%             21%
Democrats                  37%                32%             31%
independents              38%                34%             28%
Republicans                56%                31%             13%

It appears three Californians had incorporated in Arizona in an effort to take over operations of the East Valley Tribune.

It’s not clear, because the date of incorporation was Aug. 25, whether the tentative deal to buy the Tribune is still being worked out. The agreement was to be inked by Aug. 31, but that deadline was not met.

The articles of incorporation could be a moot point. But the notice did include a new name; a Santa Monica Observer contributing writer, Rebecca James, had joined forced with Observer chieftans David Ganezer and Steve Hadland. In a previous blog post, I noted that Hadland and Ganezer were trying to swing a deal to buy four Arizona papers, including the Tribune, from bankrupt Freedom Communications.

And it’s still possible the Tribune will be sold through bankruptcy proceedings, as has been reported on other local blogs.

I just called the Santa Monica Observer, and asked for Ganezer, James or Hadland, and was told to “hang on just a second.” But then my call was redirected to a number that had been disconnected. A follow-up call reached an answering machine.

Here’s the public notice, which was signed Aug. 25 by James, Ganezer and Hadland:

Articles of Incorporation of Arizona Newspaper Group, Inc., An Arizona Corporation

1. Name: The name of the corporation is Arizona Newspaper Group, Inc, an Arizona Corporation. 2. Initial Business: The Corporation initially intends to conduct the business of newspaper publishing, printing, the sale of advertising and marketing services, website design and internet advertising, journalism and other related, lawful activities. 3. Authorized Capital: The Corporation shall have the authority to issue 10,000,000 shares of common stock. 4. Known Place of Business: (In Arizona) The street address of the known place of business of the Corporation is: Arizona Newspaper Publishing Group, Inc, c/o East Valley Tribune Newspaper, 120 West 1st Avenue, Mesa, AZ 85210. 5. Statutory Agent: (In Arizona) The name and address of the statutory agent of the Corporation is: Rebecca James, 120 West 1st Avenue, Mesa, AZ 85210. 6. Board of Directors: The initial board of directors shall consist of three directors. The names and addresses of the persons who are to serve as the directors until the first annual meeting of shareholders or until their successors are elected and qualified, are: Rebecca James, 120 West 1st Avenue, Mesa, AZ 85210; David Ganezer, 120 West 1st Avenue, Mesa, AZ 85210. 7. Incorporators: The names and addresses of incorporators are: Rebecca James, 120 West 1st Avenue, Mesa, AZ 85210; David Ganezer, 120 West 1st Avenue, Mesa, AZ 85210. The liability of the directors is eliminated to the fullest extent permissible under Arizona law. 8. Indemnification of Officers, Directors, Employees and Agents: The Corporation shall indemnify an person who incurs expenses or liabilities by reason of the fact he or she is or was an officer, director, employee or agent of the Corporation or is or was serving at the request of the Corporation as a director, officer, employee or agent of another Corporation, partnership, joint venture, trust or other enterprise. This indemnification shall be mandatory in all circumstances in which indemnification is permitted by law. 9. Limitation of Liability: To the fullest extent permitted by the Arizona Revised Statutes, as the same exists or may hereafter be amended, a director of the Corporation shall not be liable to the Corporation or its stockholders for monetary damages for any action taken or any failure to take any action as a director. No repeal, amendment or modification of this article, whether direct or indirect, shall eliminate or reduce its effect with respect to any act or omission of a director of the Corporation occurring prior to such repeal, amendment or modification. Executed this 25th Day of August by all of the incorporators. Signed: /s/ Stephen Hadland /s/ David Ganezer /s/ Rebecca James Tel: (310) 452-9900 Fax: (310) 388-1235

Another poll shows dismal approval ratings for Gov. Jan Brewer. This time, pollsters contrasted her performance, as judged by Arizona residents, with those of former governors Janet Napolitano and Jane Hull.

And, if the approval/disapproval ratings of former governors can be used as a benchmark, Brewer has a lot to worry about heading into 2010.

Only 22 percent of the 800 people interviewed for the latest Rocky Mountain Poll (conducted Sept. 9-18 by the Behavior Research Center) said they approve of Brewer’s performance. That’s down from 24 percent approval in May when a similar poll was conducted.

At the same time, the percentage of voters who disapprove of her performance went up by two percent. Twenty-eight percent rated her performance as “poor,” compared to 26 percent in May.

Both of the figures above fall within the margin of error for the poll, so maybe they don’t mean much. And there is still the murky designation of “fair,” which 30 percent of voters used to rate Brewer (it was 32 percent in May).

But there is something that has changed signicantly, and it could hurt Brewer in the primary unless the trend changes.

Republicans who took part in the latest poll were far more negative about her performance than they were four months ago. Now, 27 percent of GOP respondents said they disapprove of Brewer, compared to 18 percent who disapproved in May. That 9 percent difference is a big deal, whether or not the other numbers have meaning. 

Likely voters in Maricopa County were the most critical toward the governor - 32 percent negative to 24 percent favorable. Her reviews are also slipped in Rural Arizona - 18 percent favorable to 24 percent negative.

As was mentioned above, Brewer’s ratings are dismal compared to her predecessors. A media release that was distributed along with the poll figures states, “Voter assessment of the Governor remain significantly lower than those of her two predecessors, Janet Napolitano and Jane Hull, clear evidence that her struggles with GOP lawmakers over taxes and the 2010 budget have had an enduring impact.”

Here are the actual results and the exact wording of the question regarding Brewer’s performance that was asked during the survey:

“Next, I’d like to read you the names of some public officials. As I read each one, please just
tell me if you think the job they are doing in office is excellent, good, fair, poor or very
poor.”

EARLY JOB RATINGS FOR ARIZONA GOVERNORS
                                           Excellent/Good    Fair       Poor/Very Poor      (Net Pos to Neg)
Jan Brewer           - Sept 2009     22%              30%                 28%                        (-6)
                           - May 2009      24%             32%                 26%                         (-2)
Janet Napolitano - Oct 2003       46%             30%                 16%                        (+30)
                           -April 2003      49%             24%                 10%                       (+39)
Jane Hull             - Jan 1998        56%             20%                  3%                        (+53)
                           - Oct 1997        45%            20%                  4%                        (+41)

CURRENT READINGS FOR GOVERNOR JAN BREWER
Total population                          22%             20%                 28%                       (-6)
Registered voters only                 24%             28%                 31%                       (-7)
Republicans                                 30%             28%                 27%                       (+3)
Independents                               16%             26%                 38%                      (-22)
Democrats                                   24%             30%                  31%                      (-7)
Maricopa                                      24%             28%                 32%                       (-8)
Pima                                             23%             30%                 19%                       (+4)
Rural                                            18%             34%                 24%                       (-6)

To see the full results of this and other polls by the Behavior Research Center, go to www.brcpolls.com.

Even I was surprised by the results of our online poll. I expected Dean Martin to rank highly, as well as Jan Brewer. But I had no idea Vernon Parker would top the results.

On Sept. 9 we asked readers to vote for the person they would most want to see as the Republican nominee for governor in 2010. During the past 12 days, we were overwhelmed with responses. Though the methodology was not scientific, I do believe the results are interesting, if not significant - especially considering most of our readers vote in every election and the fact that we had 824 responses.

Parker, the mayor of Paradise Valley, pretty much stomped on the other 10 people who were listed as possible gubernatorial candidates. He tallied 298 votes (36 percent), topping all other candidates by a wide margin. Next was state Treasurer Dean Martin with 230 votes (28 percent). The rest trailed far behind.

The list didn’t include most of the political neophytes who have filed committees so far, but it did include most of the people who’s names have been circulated in recent months. We started the poll days before Fife Symington told the Yellow Sheet that he was considering a run, so he wasn’t included.

But perhaps even more interesting was that Brewer, the incumbent, came in third, in a tie with Len Munsil, who ran an unsuccessful campaign for governor in 2006 against Janet Napolitano. Both Brewer and Munsil garnered 70 votes (8 percent).

U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake, who hasn’t indicated any intention to run for governor, pulled down 50 votes (6 percent). U.S. Rep. John Shadegg, who also hasn’t said anything about running for governor, received 35 votes (4 percent). Secretary of State Ken Bennett received 27 votes; former U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters got 20 votes; former Arizona Republican Party Chairman John Munger got 10 votes; former Graham County Sheriff Richard Mack got 9 votes; and businessman Robert Graham got 5 votes. 

Our poll allows only one vote per person, although there was nothing stopping any of the candidates to solicit votes from friends, relatives and staff members. Perhaps Parker (or Jason Rose) wanted to generate some buzz and talked up our poll to those in his camp. Perhaps Brewer ignored our poll - after all, she was sort of busy.

But in any case, the poll was the first that I’ve seen that put these GOP candidates in a head-to-head matchup. And the results have at least made me give a little more weight to a Parker candidacy, which, by the way, he is expected to kick off this week.

Just prior to the Aug. 31 announcement that Freedom Communications Inc. was seeking bankruptcy protection, it appears there was a last-ditch effort to sell a large portion of Freedom’s assets in Arizona, including the East Valley Tribune.

It’s not clear whether any agreement is under consideration now - there was a deadline to act by Aug. 31 - but an industry source offered some details about how the deal was structured.

First, it would have been a two-phase deal that included the purchase of two commercial buildings, four newspapers, a marketing company and a web-design business. The deal would have cost the buyers $2 million, with a first-phase payment of $200,000 due by noon on Aug. 31. Because the deal didn’t close at that time, it’s not clear whether any arrangement is still in the works.

The four newspapers included in the deal are reported to have a total circulation of 100,000. They have about 265 employees.

The marketing company that would have been sold is The Clipper, along with a web-design company called AZ Interactive Media Group.

The first phase of the deal would have included everything listed above except for the two buildings, appraised at roughly $8 million, and three printing presses, which include a $4 million press purchased last year.

Phase two was supposed to close within 90 days.

But here’s where it gets interesting: The industry insider I spoke with said two California businessmen were behind the deal to buy Freedom’s Arizona assets. One was David Ganezer, of the Santa Monica Observer, and the other was Steve Hadland, who runs the Culver City Observer and is CEO of the Santa Monica Media Company.

Hadland was part of a failed acquisition bid for the Tucson Citizen earlier this year. Ganezer acted as company spokesman. The bid failed when Gannett Co. refused to accept less than $800,000 for the Citizen. The original asking price was $1 million, and Hadland reportedly offered about $500,000. The Citizen now operates as a web-only publication.

As part of the deal for the Freedom assets, the buyers would have assumed $100,000 cash and $1.5 million in receivables that were part of the Arizona newspapers’ financial portfolio.

But they also would have assumed an unkown amount of liability, which could include any outstanding debt and other liability costs. I was going to try to ballpark the deferred subscription liability based on subscription price, but because the East Valley Tribune is no longer subscription-based and charges only for delivery (if you don’t feel like picking up a free edition at various newsstands across the East Valley), it’s not clear how much the total deferred subscription liability would have been.

But any readers who had paid for delivery would be entitled to continue receiving their papers for the term of their delivery contract. Right now, the East Valley Tribune charges about $13 per month for delivery. The paper is published three days per week.

Ganezer and Hadland apparently were in communication with Freedom during the week prior to the bankruptcy filing, according to the industry source. They most likely worked out a tentative deal, at least in concept, and were trying to raise cash from investors.

I’m surmising that the agreement has fallen apart because, according to the industry insider, the deadline was not met. But that doesn’t mean the whole thing is off the table.

I have attempted to get in touch with both Ganezer and Hadland for comment. Ganezer called back but said he was not authorized to discuss the arrangement. Hadland hasn’t responded to an e-mail.

Lastly, it’s not clear which of the other Freedom papers in Arizona would have been part of the deal. The East Valley Tribune’s sister publications include the Ahwatukee Foothills News, the Daily News-Sun, Freedom Politics, Glendale Today, Peoria Today, Surprise Today and YourWestValley.com.

More information about the Culver City Observer can be found at http://www.culvercityobserver.com. More information about the Santa Monica Observer can be found at http://www.smobserver.com.

Full disclosure: I am a former East Valley Tribune editor. I left the paper in 2007 before the first round of layoffs in the newsroom.

Those of us in the Capitol Times newsroom just spent nearly an hour discussing Fife Symington’s revelation to the Yellow Sheet that he is leaning toward a run for governor in 2010, and we can’t come to a consensus about whether he’s serious.

Some of us believe he sincerely wants to run, and that he eventually will. Others, though, aren’t so sure. After all, he said a few years back that he was planning to run against Janet Napolitano in the 2006 gubernatorial election, and then backed out a few months later saying he wanted to concentrate on running his consulting business, The Symington Group.

It’s notable that he’s got more baggage than any of the other Republicans who have considered a campaign. He was convicted of bank fraud in 1997 and had to resign as governor because state law doesn’t allow felons to hold state office. Two years later, his conviction was overturned by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and he was later pardoned by his old pal Bill Clinton.

At the same time, he might have more name recognition than most of the other potential candidates. He was governor for more than six years, starting in 1991. He has a large band of loyal supporters in GOP ranks. He should have no problem raising enough money to sustain a bid. And his family has a deep background in politics.

Yet many of his former cohorts are now in Gov. Brewer’s camp, so which way would they gravitate if both decide to run? It’s anyone’s guess at this point, but it would create a dilemma for at least a few top-level politicos.

It all makes me wonder if there’s more to this story; for instance, is Symington’s announcement a ploy to get Brewer to bow out? And, if so, is Symington really the most viable GOP candidate? I’ve been trying to figure out who benefits most from a Brewer withdrawal.

Lastly, Symington won a narrow victory over Democrat Terry Goddard in his first bid for governor in 1990. If he runs again next year and if he wins the primary, Arizonans likely will be in store for a very interesting race that certainly would conjure bits of state history.

For the full interview with Symington and more details, go to http://www.yellowsheetreport.com/home.htm/page/newsArticle.newsArticle&articleID=7260

The East Valley Tribune’s parent company, Freedom Communications Inc., is seeking bankruptcy protection after several years of declining revenue and massive shake-ups at its largest newspapers.

The corporation owns a handful of TV stations and more than 30 daily papers, including its flagship Orange County Register.

Freedom reported assets of about $1 billion, but also has liabilities of about $1 billion.

Circulation and ad revenue have dropped considerably at its largest papers. In Irvine, Calif., the Register lost more than 10 percent of its circulation. In Mesa, the Tribune saw paid-circulation numbers drop in a much bigger way - and the impacts were even more catastrophic than the numbers show.

Dozens of Tribune reporters lost their jobs, including some of the most talented and highly paid. The paper stopped publishing daily and started putting out stacks of papers for free. The idea was to keep the paper in lots of people’s hands so advertisers would continue to buy space. It changed publishers twice within a few months, and people in all departments started to worry about the future. They shrunk the paper to a tabloid format instead of broadsheet, and they began publishing fewer pages of news copy.

I must disclose here that I am a former Tribune employee. I spent almost two years there, and it was a good job while it lasted. It was a really solid paper for the first year I was there, and I learned a lot from some very talented journalists. Looking back, I am glad I had a chance to work there. But things took a severe turn for the worse in 2007, and I decided to cut and run.

I left prior to the crisis, and I did so willingly. Before the first round of newsroom layoffs and before the paper ceased being a daily, I saw the writing on the wall and left to take a much better job at the Capitol Times. The signs of trouble were clear. For example, upper management began looking for excuses to pull back on state Capitol coverage, and as the assistant metro editor in charge of Arizona political coverage, I didn’t want to be there anymore.

They always say the same thing: It’s not that we’re struggling, we just want to focus on neighborhood coverage. The higher-ups would come to me and point out statistics that “prove” people don’t care about state government news and only want to know what’s going on next door. I always said, and still do, that sort of reasoning is faulty; state laws and other things going on at the Capitol impact daily lives more than the local dog show at the park.

It’s also not a good sign when top-level editors, who should know better, would rather put the Arizona Cardinals on the front page instead of news about the governor or the budget.

So, here I am. Thank goodness.