|
Uncle Sam and his DEA goons want YOU to snitch on anybody that MIGHT be doing something illegal!!!! "FedEx ... would gladly refuse the business of drug dealers, it just doesn’t have the wherewithal, or the responsibility, to figure out who they are. THE GOVERNMENT DISAGREES." "the government has been leaning on other private enterprises, like banks, to help it do police work for decades." http://fortune.com/2014/12/02/drug-war-corporate-america-silk-road/?xid=yahoo_fortune The war on drugs comes to Corporate America by Chris Matthews December 2, 2014, 2:54 PM EST The federal government has increased pressure on the private sector to fight the war on drugs, just as public support for the effort has reached a low. It’s no surprise that the FBI takedown of the online drug market Silk Road was one of the most captivating stories of 2013. The federal government’s complaint against the alleged Silk Road mastermind Ross Ulbricht had all the necessary ingredients for the making of a thrilling techno-drama. It accused Ulbricht, a talented Silicon Valley engineer, of using tools like bitcoin and the Tor network to help create an online marketplace called Silk Road, where users could buy and sell (mostly drug-related) contraband, safe from the prying eyes of law enforcement. Silk Road started out as essentially an exercise in civil disobedience, where libertarians could flout laws against crimes like drug trafficking. But the project, the government alleges, eventually took a darker turn when Ulbricht resorted to hiring a hitman to kill a Silk Road user who was threatening to reveal the identities of its customers. This allegation, which is part of the original complaint released last October, garnered widespread media attention, but was quietly left out of the charges filed against Ulbricht in New York State, for which he will stand trial in January. Ulbricht’s defense team argues that the government never planned to go ahead with these charges, as it never had enough proof to convict, and it only raised them at first to discredit Ulbricht and head off any public support that he might have garnered. Meanwhile, controversy has surfaced over how, exactly, the FBI located the Silk Road servers. Again, the defense, along with many security experts, allege that law enforcement hacked its way in, and violated the Fourth Amendment in doing so. But it’s not just fringe outfits like Silk Road anymore that are claiming that law enforcement has crossed a line in its efforts to shut down drug dealers. In July, the Feds indicted FedEx on charges that it “conspired” with crooked pharmacies that illegally sold prescription drugs online. The federal government argues that FedEx continued to do business with these pharmacies even after they should have suspected that their customers were shipping illegal drugs. But FedEx has rejected the notion that it should be responsible for monitoring its customers and what they ship. As FedEx Senior Vice President Patrick Fitzgerald said in a statement: FedEx is innocent of these and all of the charges filed in this matter. We will plead not guilty. We will continue to defend against this attack on the integrity of FedEx. We continue to ask for a list of all internet pharmacies engaging in illegal activity so we can turn off shipping for those companies immediately. We have asked for a list, and they have sent us indictments. In other words, FedEx is saying that while it would gladly refuse the business of drug dealers, it just doesn’t have the wherewithal, or the responsibility, to figure out who they are. The government disagrees. In 2013, it forced FedEx competitor UPS to forfeit $40 million in revenues from suspected drug dealers and cooperate with government investigations after signing a non-prosecution agreement. Larry Cote, an attorney and ex-associate chief counsel at the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration who now advises companies on drug enforcement issues, said the following to Businessweek, “Targeting a company that’s two, three steps removed from the actual doctor-patient, pharmacy-patient relationship is unprecedented.” Of course, the government has been leaning on other private enterprises, like banks, to help it do police work for decades. But the Feds have only increased their efforts to enlist financial institutions to fight the international drug trade. Last year, it forced HSBC to pay a $1.9 billion fine after the government accused it of turning a blind eye to the money laundering activities of international drug traffickers, and it has in recent years demanded that banks of all sizes ramp up their scrutiny of customer accounts to root out drug dealers and tax evaders. Complying with regulations like the Bank Secrecy Act, which help the government fight drug and other crimes, costs billions for companies and raises prices for consumers. The private sector has long been hesitant to complain about regulations aimed at fighting the drug trade, but the fact that FedEx is fighting this latest criminal indictment might signals a sea change. After all, these events are unfolding against a backdrop of declining public support for the war on drugs. A Pew Research Center report released in April showed that a significant majority of Americans support moving away from mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes, legalizing marijuana, and focusing on treatment rather than punishment of drug users. Let’s be clear: the government actions against FedEx and Silk Road are only tangentially related. FedEx is a huge, international shipping company, and the vast majority of its revenues come from legitimate businesses, whereas Silk Road was an underground website that was allegedly little more than a “platform for facilitating the selling of illicit goods and services,” according to the government’s complaint against Ulbricht. But if you take the claims of the defendants at face value, both Ross Ulbricht and FedEx are victims of law enforcement overreach in its prosecution of a drug war that has been an abject failure in curbing drug addiction, reducing the power of drug cartels, and reducing the availability or price of illegal drugs. And the prosecution of this war has had come at a huge cost to civil liberties, government budgets, and corporate compliance. It looks as if the American people, and its businesses, are beginning to question whether the dubious benefits of the drug war are worth the price.
Could judge hold Arpaio in contempt? Thursday will tell I am sure all of us will love it if this happens. But I doubt if Sheriff Joe will get any more then a slap on the wrist for it. Yea, a slap on the wrist for stuff that would send us normal serfs to prison. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/2014/12/03/arpaio-hearing-federal-court-abrk/19801051/ Could judge hold Arpaio in contempt? Thursday will tell Sean Holstege and Megan Cassidy, The Republic | azcentral.com 6:28 a.m. MST December 3, 2014 What should have been a routine hearing in federal court turned out to be anything but, setting up the prospect of another explosive courtroom showdown between a federal judge and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Thursday in federal court, lawyers for the county will ask U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow to clarify whether he plans to cite the popular sheriff with civil or criminal contempt of court charges, or none at all. The county cannot defend deputies in criminal matters. Snow indicated he was mulling charges at the last showdown, on Nov. 25. Then, Snow told attorneys he was inclined to widen federal oversight of the Sheriff's Office and proposed a list of new rules it had to abide by. Thursday, lawyers will argue the merits of Snow's plan. Snow followed up with an order this week in which he wrote he wanted to move "expeditiously" to hear attorneys on "the question of the appointment of a prosecutor," who might, "pursue criminal contempt proceedings against Sheriff Arpaio," and to discuss "the possible scope of such proceedings." Snow also revealed in his written order that in a closed-door Nov. 20 hearing, the Sheriff's Office disclosed the existence of a Nov. 1, 2012 traffic stop, which the judge said was significant because it came more than 10 months after he ordered the agency "to stop doing the (immigration) interdiction patrols." But even as attorneys prepare for Thursday's hearing with Snow, another group of attorneys representing the Sheriff's Office will appear before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco as part of an ongoing appeal of Snow's original racial-profiling ruling. Last month's hearing was supposed to a cut-and-dried matter of letting one member of Arpaio's legal team representing call it quits after a long, arduous legal process. What actually happened was more dramatic. Amid disclosures that investigators continue to stumble onto new hidden evidence, a federal judge threatened a deeper investigation and possible legal action against Arpaio and his agency. Instead of a steady march toward compliance with a court-ordered consent decree to reform the agency's treatment of Latinos in traffic stops, the hearing blew open the prospect of new investigations into new allegations of wrongdoing. Rather than put a troubled chapter in the past from a 2007 class-action civil-rights lawsuit, the Sheriff's Office sank deeper into a legal swamp. The next day, Snow took the Sheriff's Office to task in his court order, especially for failing to produce "many pieces of evidence that may once have been available and highly relevant (and) may have since been destroyed." He also suggested that some witnesses lied under oath. "This evidence and unimpeachable testimony, if admitted at the trial of this matter, could have resulted in a significantly expanded scope of injunctive relief entered by this court," Snow wrote. Translation: If sheriff's deputies and administrators hadn't lied and withheld or destroyed evidence, Snow and his appointed monitor would have more power to straighten out the agency. Snow wrote a draft of the order before he heard in court that even more evidence is coming out. Specifically, Snow ordered changes to the monitoring process, including: Creating a watchdog team to keep an eye on the sheriff's internal-affairs investigations and report on the thoroughness of disciplinary probes. Requiring the Sheriff's Office to inform the court when it finishes each internal investigation. Re-establishing the authority for the court-appointed monitor to launch, as deemed necessary, independent investigations beyond the scope of internal-affairs probes. Asserting the court's right to order its own such investigations. Expert civil-rights attorneys agree that Snow has the right to place Arpaio in contempt of court. If evidence emerges showing a pattern of non-compliance or widespread systematic racial profiling beyond what was proved in the original 2007 lawsuit against the Sheriff's Office, Snow has far-reaching authority, they said. "The judge will have a lot of latitude in ordering compliance," said David Harris, a University of Pittsburgh Law School professor, a national racial-profiling expert familiar with a similar case in Cincinnati. "If there is continued non-compliance, all of it is on the table, including all but receivership." In Oakland, court monitors don't have full power to take over the Police Department in the wake of a case alleging gross misconduct among police officers, but they did fire senior command staff and mandate sweeping reforms. "The court has a broad range of authority in his contempt-of-court powers," said local attorney Jim Chanin, one of the attorneys who successfully sued the Oakland Police Department after allegations surfaced of a rogue squad that targeted and beat up Black men. The court can investigate, fine or jail law-enforcement commanders, including Arpaio, Chanin said. Snow can also widen his investigation, both experts said, but only if investigators can show the new allegations are connected to the underlying pattern of racial profiling that was shown in court. Snow, in his ruling, asserted the connection. He wrote that documented failures "suggest that defendants and/or some of their employees may continue to be engaged in efforts to frustrate the implementation of this court's orders, and may in fact be using the internal affairs investigative process to conceal widespread departmental misconduct." For instance, Snow cited an allegation by former Deputy Ramon "Charley" Armendariz that "it was common for other members of (the Human Smuggling Unit) to leave items like identifications laying around the office." Armendariz committed suicide after he testified in the civil-rights trial and was suspected of targeting Latinos illegally during traffic stops. New evidence But on Thursday, the county's private attorney, Timothy Casey, disclosed that new evidence, including scores of foreign ID cards, was uncovered as recently as this month. He added that "it will be an undertaking" to turn what he described as "a substantial volume of material" over to plaintiffs attorneys. Casey reported that, in pursuing its internal investigation of possible policy violations, the agency uncovered audio and videotapes from interviews of human-smuggling suspects taken from 2009 to 2011. That and other materials, such as Miranda cards and cellphones, were linked to investigations and marked with crime report numbers, but they were never logged into evidence, he said. Also, he said, deputies opened a locker on Sheriff's Office premises Nov. 5 and found two purses with cellphones, keys, ID cards and indications that they, too, were related to a case file. Then, five days later, deputies were cleaning departmental offices and uncovered 164 ID cards, mainly bearing Hispanic last names and issued in foreign countries. Deputies told investigators 111 of them were used for "training," while no explanation was offered for the remainder. Then, Casey said, deputies found 35 license plates that were supposed to have been indexed as evidence and returned to the state's Motor Vehicle Division. Of these, 13 were linked by computer files to Armendariz. At least three other deputies or commanders were implicated by the license plates. Unlike evidence taken from his house after he committed suicide, the new evidence was found at the Sheriff"s Office. Snow reacts Judge Snow had clearly reached his limit on Thursday. "I am not going to be tolerant anymore," he warned. "We will proceed with dispatch. I am not going to give you any second chances." He scheduled what promised to be a showdown hearing on Dec. 4 into the proposed order and signaled that he may call deputies as witnesses as part of his own independent inquiries. "I have given your client opportunity after opportunity after opportunity," Snow said. "In opportunity after opportunity after opportunity, your client has violated the law, violated my express orders or subverted the investigation I ordered." Casey, who was in court asking for —and being granted the right — to be removed from the case, disagreed with Snow's characterization. "Despite some of the things that have been said here, my clients' belief is that they have followed this court's orders in good faith," he told Snow. Deputy County Attorney Tom Liddy, who will represent the Sheriff's Office, said dozens of employees were working diligently to address Snow's concerns. "We are doing everything we have to to come into compliance with the court order," Liddy said. "The sheriff would certainly disagree that MCSO is doing anything short of full cooperation to get to full compliance as soon as possible." Background The latest face-off stems from a lawsuit filed by Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, which expanded to include a class of Latinos who said they were unconstitutionally targeted in traffic stops. Snow ruled for Melendres and later ordered sweeping reforms to prevent discriminatory policing in the future. The $30 million reforms included in-vehicle recording devices, bias-free training for deputies and increased data collection. But his initial reforms expanded this spring after revelations that Armendariz had been stashing drugs, identification cards, license plates and torn-up citations in his home, signaling what appeared to be a shake-down operation that stretched for years. Armendariz also secretly recorded thousands of his own traffic stops, documenting his own misconduct and signaling to Snow that the Sheriff's Office did not turn over all the traffic-stop data that was required for the lawsuit. Complicating the issue was Armendariz himself. He was one of a handful of deputies to testify during the trial. Snow soon extended his purview to include the agency's internal investigation into Armendariz and the possibility of widespread corruption within the sheriff's Human Smuggling Unit. Snow has become increasingly agitated over the investigation in recent hearings. Sheriff's officials poured thousands of man-hours into inquiry, but court-appointed monitor Robert Warshaw deemed the investigation insufficient. The monitoring team described a lax inquiry into which deputies also employed recording devices and said investigators disregarded another former deputy's allegations that Human Smuggling Unit members had pocketed evidence. Such tactics were commonplace in Cincinnati and Oakland. The Cincinnati Police Department threw the monitor out of the department's offices, Harris recalled. Oakland "played out the clock," Chanin said. Instead of wrapping up the oversight in five years, monitors are still there, 11 years on. "They thought they would waive the consent decree around for a while and we would go away," he recalled. More fireworks could erupt on Dec. 4.
The San Diego Freeway between LAX and the San Fernando Valley has always been f*cked up. When I lived there I would take Sepulvada which runs along side the San Diego Freeway when I had to go to the San Fernando Valley during rush hour. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-405-freeway-traffic-closures-20141202-story.html Four ways the 405 freeway project has not made your life better By Carla Hall contact the reporter You can hardly take a trip on the 405 in West L.A. without seeing the ominous 'Second Ramp Closed' signs After four years of lane closures, bulldozers, orange cones, and K-rails, the $1.1-billion 405 Freeway construction project was declared completed in May -- more or less. The big accomplishment: The new 10-mile stretch of carpool lane on the northbound 405, carved out of the side of a mountain, was opened and destined to make your life better. Has it? Of course not. OK, maybe here and there. Yes, the new untangled on and off ramps at Wilshire Boulevard now allow you to get off the freeway without having to pray for your life while crossing the traffic coming onto the freeway. But here are the reasons that the construction has not made your life better: 1. Traffic is just as bad! I swear it’s worse. lRelated Your 405 exit is closed, but will Metro or Caltrans tell you? The good news -- in a holistic sense-- is that the economy got better. That’s why traffic isn’t budging. More people are on their way to more jobs. Metro officials see the bright side -- imagine how bad the traffic would be if there were not the extra lane this year, they say… 2. Construction just won’t end. Those construction workers are a little like Eldin, the painter working on Murphy Brown's house...who never finished the job and stayed around so long he became her confidant. - How can your life be better if it’s never finished? The so-called “punch list” -- a little electrical work, a little landscaping -- seems to go on and on. You can hardly take a trip up or down the 405 in West L.A. without seeing the ominous “Second Ramp Closed” signs. Those construction workers are a little like Eldin, the painter working on Murphy Brown’s house on the hit '90s sitcom who never finished the job and stayed around so long he became her confidant. (“Murphy Brown.” If you don’t know it, go check it out. It’s a classic. ) Not that I see many drivers stopping to chat up construction crew for advice. 3. Not all the new ramps are so fabulous, according to some drivers. The on-ramp to the 405 at Skirball Center is configured at a steep angle with a sharp turn, reports a friend of mine who drives that ramp most weekdays. “Impossible to stay in your lane unless you are a stuntman,” he says. 4. And just when we thought we were out, they pull us back in… All that roadblock fatigue over the endless 405 project (see #2) has sent us into post-construction stress disorder (PCSD) over yet another project that has cropped up on the Westside. A new set of lane closures, K-rails and construction crews has sprouted like invasive ground cover along both sides of Wilshire Boulevard between Federal and Bonsall avenues. It’s all part of a 12.5-mile Wilshire Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit project that will create a peak-hour bus lane on eastbound Wilshire. In the process, they’re widening Wilshire in this area. Which just means we can’t get to the newly widened 405 freeway unless we want to sit in the stalled traffic on the widening Wilshire Boulevard. It will be done next year, the signs say. We can dream.
Issues over police shooting in Ferguson lead push for officers and body cameras Won't be worth sh*t if the cops can turn them on and off when they want to!!!! When I was falsely arrested by Chandler Ariel Werther on Oct 17, 2014 one of the Chandler cops told me they were wearing body cameras. In my request for public records to the city of Chandler, one of the Chandler city attorneys lied to me and told me that videos were not covered by Arizona's public record laws. I am sure by the time I actually get a copy of the tapes, they will have some lame excuse for erasing the videos. Bottom line is body cameras will just be used as a lame excuse to PRETEND the police are being held accountable for crimes they commit. But in reality when the sh*t hits the fan, the videos will magically be deleted by the cops. I put a link to the false arrest at the end of this article. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/issues-over-police-shooting-in-ferguson-lead-push-for-officers-and-body-cameras/2014/12/02/dedcb2d8-7a58-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html?hpid=z3 Issues over police shooting in Ferguson lead push for officers and body cameras By Peter Hermann and Rachel Weiner December 2 at 8:29 PM A year ago, the notion that police officers across the country would wear body cameras seemed novel, with only a few dozen departments, most of them small, willing to give it a try. Within the past few months, big cities such as Washington, Los Angeles and New York cautiously began pilot programs. But after the police shooting in Ferguson, Mo., and the debate it raised over accountability and trust, there is no longer a question of whether such cameras will become standard police equipment. “The body camera is here to stay,” said Anne T. McKenna, a civil litigator in Baltimore and an expert on electronic surveillance and privacy law. President Obama gave the issue a significant push Monday when he proposed reimbursing communities half the cost of buying cameras and storing video — a plan that would require Congress to authorize $75 million over three years to help purchase 50,000 recording devices. Studies indicate complaints against officers drop when incidents are recorded, although there is not enough data yet to make conclusive claims. The mass introduction of the small cameras — which run from a few hundred dollars to $1,000 each — raise complicated questions about privacy, cost and what will become of countless hours of video. Policing experts who support officers wearing cameras are worried about moving too fast, without clear rules about when officers should turn cameras on and off, how to store the massive data generated daily and how long to keep the footage. Authorities say technology has surged ahead of state privacy laws and question whether there has been enough thought about whether the videos should be made public. “There is so much to grapple with,” said McKenna, who also teaches privacy law at Pennsylvania State University. The lure is that cameras will improve trust, for both the public and the police, who generally believe videos will most often back their perception of events. McKenna noted the vastly different recollections of witnesses in Ferguson about whether Michael Brown, the unarmed 18-year-old killed by police officer Darren Wilson, was charging or surrendering when Wilson fired the fatal shots. “If we had a body camera in that situation, think how different it would be now,” McKenna said. “This debate over what the officer said happened and whether the man had his hands up, we wouldn’t be talking about it.” But some authorities worry that after a police shooting or other confrontation, residents will expect to see the video almost immediately, like an instant replay in football. “The public and everyone believes that in the wake of Ferguson, if that happened in a city with body cameras, that the video would be released to the public,” D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier said. “That is not the way it works.” Lanier said videos would generally be withheld from public view until trial or the end of an investigation, which can take years. But she said knowing a video exists should help ease tensions. “Body cameras will capture the truth,” the chief said. Lindsay Miller, a senior researcher with the Police Executive Research Forum who co-authored a report on body cameras, urges that departments implement “broad public disclosure” rules. “The public is going to expect it,” she said. D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier and Mayor Vincent Gray announced Tuesday that officers will begin wearing body cameras to document traffic stops and arrests. They released footage of a simulated traffic stop while police wore cameras. (D.C. Metropolitan Police via YouTube) Some of the nation’s largest police departments are trying cameras out, and more are expected to join them. The New York Police Department announced in the fall that it would outfit 60 officers with cameras, in part because of a federal judge’s order to curb stop-and-frisk tactics. D.C. police began a pilot program in September. In three months, 165 officers around the District have recorded tens of thousands — possibly hundreds of thousands — of hours of video. Lanier said she may end the six-month pilot ahead of schedule and start implementing a camera program across the 4,000-member department. D.C. police issued an 18-page “special order” that is publicly available on the Internet, which spells out in detail how and when officers should hit the record button. It includes virtually all interactions with the public. Many departments carve out exceptions for interviewing witnesses and informants and the casual banter with the public that is widely encouraged as part of community policing. Some officials worry the cameras may discourage people from giving officers tips or information. D.C. police will keep a recordings for 90 days unless it is needed for court. The Police Executive Research Forum, which advises police agencies across the country on best practices, found that 63 of 254 departments surveyed used body cameras, but nearly one-third of those had no written policies. “If the cameras are just slapped on police officers” without guidance, they won’t achieve the goal of “increasing community trust in police,” said Jay Stanley, a policy analyst at the American Civil Liberties Union, which supports body cameras. Another nearly universal concern among police leaders is what happens when an officer forgets to record or there is a technical glitch during a volatile moment. “It’s not the tape that you have that causes the problem, it’s the tape you don’t have that causes the problem,” said Miller, the research associate at the Police Executive Research Forum. And now that D.C. police have had some body cameras running for three months, a new issue has emerged — the question of public access. The District recently denied the Washington-based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press a public-records request for body-camera videos worn by all officers on a single day. The city argued that it does not have enough staff, money, time and technology to redact or blur images on videos that police say would violate people’s privacy rights. The journalism group is appealing, arguing that the concerns are inflated and not a legal reason to withhold a government record. The group calls it hypocritical for police to implement a program to be more accountable to the public and then deny the public access. One city, Seattle, is threatening to abandon its body-camera program, saying complying with public records requests would gobble up its budget and resources. But so far, police agencies that use body cameras report positive results. James R. Brooks, deputy police chief in Laurel, Md., said use of force has gone down about 30 percent since the department began using the recording devices two years ago. While complaints have not seen a dramatic drop, he said, they are now adjudicated far more quickly. Lorie Fridell, a criminology professor at the University of South Florida, said research has shown that departments with cameras see complaints and use of force go down. But, she said, “we really haven’t had enough studies documenting the positives and the negatives of adoption.” As for the balance between privacy and transparency, she said that “there are not right or wrong answers yet. I think the police profession is still struggling with this.” But, Fridell said, policies that “reduce officer discretion” are the best practice: “The officers can’t pick and choose when to turn them on and when to turn them off.” Cameron Barr and Max Ehrenfreund contributed to this report. Rachel Weiner covers local politics for The Washington Post. ---- More on my false arrest by Chandler Police Officer Ariel Werther on Oct 17, 2014 http://bad-chandler-cop.100webspace.net/false_arrest_oct_17_2014/0_index.php
Sure this is better then here in the USA, but it is still BS!!!! The only sane "drug policy" is no drug policy. If drugs are a problem they are a MEDICAL problem, not a criminal problem. And of course the government shouldn't be throwing people in prison for medical problems. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/12/02/you-will-not-be-arrested-for-using-drugs-what-a-sane-drug-policy-looks-like/?hpid=z4 ‘You will not be arrested for using drugs’: What a sane drug policy looks like By Christopher Ingraham December 2 at 10:38 AM Authorities in the Netherlands are warning Amsterdam tourists about heroin masquerading as cocaine, which has already killed several people and sent a number of others to the hospital. The campaign is striking because you'd never see one like it in the U.S.: "You will not be arrested for using drugs in Amsterdam," the fliers promise. Instead, they give information on how to receive medical assistance and how to keep potential overdose victims alert while waiting for help. Dutch law distinguishes between "soft drugs," like marijuana, and "hard" ones, like cocaine and heroin. Possession and use of up to 5 grams of marijuana, and 1 gram of cocaine or heroin, is not subject to penalty. In sharp contrast to the U.S., where drug use has primarily been dealt with as a criminal justice issue (although there's some evidence this is changing), the Dutch approach emphasizes harm reduction and public health. One of the drawbacks of a criminal justice approach is that the threat of harsh sentencing keeps many drug users from seeking medical assistance in the event of an overdose. That's not a concern in the Netherlands. The Dutch approach allows authorities to have a frank dialogue with drug users when new dangers arise, like the fake cocaine. The destigmatization of drug use in the Netherlands also plays a big role in this. Drug users there aren't thought of as criminals, as in the U.S., but rather as normal people engaging in unhealthy behavior. There's a notable lack of moral judgment in the language used in the Amsterdam cocaine warnings -- contrast this with the rhetoric employed by many of the opponents of drug law liberalization in the U.S. Some final food for thought: 44 percent of Americans report having used marijuana in their lifetimes, and 14 percent have used cocaine. In the Netherlands, those numbers stand at 26 percent and 5 percent, respectively. Christopher Ingraham writes about politics, drug policy and all things data. He previously worked at the Brookings Institution and the Pew Research Center.
The third biggest expense of retired people is taxes!!! Sadly the government thieves think they own every cent in your pocket. Remember that silly Boston Tea Party that caused us to overthrow the British. I think the tax the King slapped on their tea was a lousy 1 and 3/4 percent tax. Hell I just paid a 8.1% sales tax on breakfast for Arizona and Tempe taxes. And if your employed and make min wage Uncle Sam is going to withhold about 10% of your income for taxes Uncle Sam thinks you owe him for breathing. http://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/consumer/2014/12/02/tax-obligations-can-surprise-retirees/19809693/ Tax obligations can be a surprise to retirees Nancy Tengler, Special for The Republic | azcentral.com 7:48 p.m. MST December 2, 2014 If you are like most people, you probably expect your greatest retirement expense to be health care. But that may not necessarily be so. A recent study completed by the Employee Benefit Research Institute identifies the single largest expense for retirees as housing. Health care ranks second. And the third-largest retirement expense? Taxes. Most of us expect to pay taxes over the course of our career. We also understand that contributions to Social Security are a tax against our future draw on the system. But we probably don't consider that we will most likely have to pay taxes on our Social Security income once retired. According to a February 2012 article on kiplinger.com, "Up to 85 percent of Social Security benefits are taxable," and the income threshold that triggers income taxation is $32,000 for a married couple. Not a very high hurdle to say the least. In other words, the vast majority of us will have to pay taxes on Social Security income we receive after years, even decades, of paying into the mandatory government retirement program and doing so with what are considered "after-tax dollars" (according to ssa.gov, the official Social Security website). That isn't the end of the tax burden hoisted by retirees. Pre-tax contributions to traditional IRAs or 401(k) plans are also taxed upon distribution. Although most of us understand that our retirement funds are accumulated with pre-tax dollars and grow tax-free, we still may be unprepared for the tax bill when we finally do take distributions. Importantly, the money we withdraw is taxed at our ordinary-income tax rate. So, let's say that you are in the 25 percent tax bracket and you find yourself with a $10,000 health-care bill. You will need to withdraw $12,500 to cover the expense and the $2,500 tax bill. There are various tax-planning strategies that can be employed by retirees. One obvious strategy is to deplete taxable assets first. Another we discussed a few weeks back: the possibility of converting a traditional IRA to a Roth. Even better, if you are young enough and meet the income restrictions, you may want to start contributing to a Roth now. Roth IRAs do not mandate the annual required minimum distribution at 701/2 like a traditional IRA, and distributions are tax-free. Consult your financial adviser or begin your research now. The plethora of comprehensive research and advice available online is an extraordinary boon to the average individual. The important thing to consider when you retire, is that you are effectively embarking on 20-plus years of unemployment. On a fixed income. And you still will have the same obligation to render unto Uncle Sam what is his. Budget for your tax liability because the Old Man is not shy about collecting his share. Next week: Best retirement investment. Nancy Tengler spent two decades as a professional investor. She is a financial-news commentator and university professor and the author of "The Women's Guide to Successful Investing." Reach her at nancy.tengler@cox.net.
Maybe some of you will want to protest this ceremony this Sunday at ASU which glorify the American War Machine!!!! It's Sunday 11 a.m. at Sun Devil Stadium. Remember the Tempe Festival of Arts will be on too. So it will be impossible to park in Downtown Tempe. I always thought the purpose of the National Guard was to defend America. Not to bomb and murder brown skinned folks in third world countries. F*ck the National Guard. They are just part of the American police state and military industrial complex. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2014/11/18/arizona-national-guard-muster-asu-abrk/19227999/ Arizona National Guard 'muster' planned for ASU on Pearl Harbor Day Aubrey McCleve, The Republic | azcentral.com 6:09 p.m. MST November 18, 2014 Pearl Harbor Day will take on added meaning for more than 5,000 members of the Arizona National Guard when they descend on Arizona State University's Sun Devil Stadium for the first state-wide military muster in more than 100 years. The muster ceremonies - which include a military formation and ceremonial exercises - are required within individual cities and units, but the ceremony in Tempe is the first time in over a century that Arizona will collectively recognize men and women of the National Guard from all 29 communities throughout the state, said Maj. Gen. Michael McGuire. Beginning at 11 a.m. on Dec. 7, over 5,000 members of the National Guard will assemble on the ASU field in Tempe as an honor to the last 13 years of irregular warfare and service in the Middle East, McGuire said. ASU administrators and National Guard leaders are hoping as many as 30,000 community members will attend a festival to follow the ceremony. "This is an opportunity as a state to say thank you for their service," McGuire said. "We want to honor veterans and this way we gain some synergy." Families of seven soldiers lost in the last 13 years fighting in the Middle East will be recognized on the field and all veterans who attend will be recognized in the stands, said Maj. Gabe Johnson, a spokesman. Because the muster is on Dec. 7, there will be a video in remembrance of U.S.S. Arizona at Pearl Harbor in addition to an array of patriotic videos and musical performances throughout the muster, Johnson said. It is a ceremonial demonstration that "shows they are trained and ready to serve," McGuire said. Following the ceremony is a community open house and a job fair for veterans seeking employment. McGuire said the job fair is open to all veterans and military families, not just those in the Guard and Reserve. The open house is meant to be a public celebration with food, friends, family and the community displaying gratitude to those who serve, said Ray Anderson, vice president of Arizona State University Athletics. "This is an honor, privilege and pleasure for us," Anderson said. "We couldn't be more proud to host this." For more info visit dema.az.gov/muster or visit on Facebook facebook.com/AZNationalGuard.
Charity at gun point??? Is it morally right for governments to steal money from rich and middle class people and give it to poor people??? I like to call that "charity at gunpoint" where the mayor and city council members select THEIR favorite charity and force you to contribute to it - at gunpoint!!! http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/editorial/2014/12/01/gilbert-housing-money/19755599/ Is it morally right to help the poor? Gilbert anguishes Editorial board, The Republic | azcentral.com 4:39 p.m. MST December 1, 2014 Our View: Town says yes to federal funds to help provide affordable housing, then says no to actually using the money. Local governments refusing to accept money they consider tainted for having touched federal hands isn't unheard of. The feds are notorious for attaching strings to their generosity that can seriously entangle those on the receiving end. Saying no can be sensible. But choosing to take the filthy federal lucre, then turning it down on supposedly moral grounds? That's a new one. Gilbert is a member of the Maricopa HOME Consortium, a clearinghouse for local municipalities that accept federal grant dollars to provide affordable housing. The town has $375,000 in HOME Consortium dollars in its bank account — $175,000 left unspent from fiscal 2012-13 and $200,000 allocated this year. Earlier this year, the Gilbert Town Council decided to send the $175,000 allocation to Scottsdale, citing unspecified "timing issues." But it was clear from council discussions that the whole idea of federally subsidizing lower-income housing had become a morally suspect act among some on the council: "While I believe we have a moral duty to care for the needy, I do not think I have the right to use the force of government to impose my moral values on others," Gilbert Councilman Victor Petersen told The Republic. Scottsdale ultimately returned the money to Gilbert, which left the southeast Valley community at a loggerheads of sorts: with an ongoing, unresolved need among its lower-income residents for affordable housing, but with a council too morally high-minded to use the money it had to help them. What a predicament. Finally, U.S. Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., prevailed on the high priests of Gilbert to spend the money. Either Gilbert spends the federal cash in its citizens' interests, he told them, or some other Valley city does. Either way, it gets spent. Local communities deal in tax dollars routed through the feds in myriad ways. But if Gilbert thinks rerouting that money to help keep a roof over the heads of some poor Gilbert resident is too morally compromising, it could (and should) end its anguish tomorrow by dropping out of the HOME Consortium.
You know those free buses in Tempe called "Orbit Buses", each time a person hops on to one of the it costs the city of Tempe $5 to give them the free ride. I suspect the Trolly Folly in Tempe will cost a lot more then that. I wonder how much this system will cost compared to Tucson's trolly folly which I think goes from the U of A Medical center on Speedway & Campbell to the 4th Avenue area and the Downtown Tucson area? http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/letters/2014/12/02/tempe-streetcar-buses/19803493/ Tempe's streetcar is utter madness Bruce Gonsalves 5:12 p.m. MST December 2, 2014 Regarding "Tempe streetcar on track, could cost $200 million" (Saturday): Between $175 million and $200 million for a 3-mile streetcar system. Have we gone completely mad? For less than $6 million, Tempe could purchase nine natural-gas-powered city buses, using six of them on the route at any one time and having three in reserve. This would put a bus every half-mile. If you missed the bus, you would be able to see the next one coming. With the budget of $175 million, Tempe could replace the buses every four years for the next 100-plus years. Please, someone, anyone — except a politician — explain to me how this makes sense. — Bruce Gonsalves, Phoenix
When cops lie and send innocent people to prison it's not perjury, it's testilying. At least that's the line of BS the cops want us to think!!! And again I will say - "You think you're going to get a fair trial??? Don't make me laugh!!!!" http://www.azcentral.com/story/laurieroberts/2014/12/02/green-acre-dog-deaths-grand-jury-motion-to-remand/19806959/ Attorney: Sheriff's deputies lied in Green Acre dog tragedy Laurie Roberts, columnist | azcentral.com 6:51 p.m. MST December 2, 2014 The son and daughter-in-law of U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake have asked a Superior Court judge to toss out charges that they abused the dogs who died this summer at the Green Acre Dog Boarding kennel. An attorney for Austin and Logan Flake say sheriff's investigators lied to and basically misled the grand jury – a major outrage, if true. "The Sheriff's Office not only withheld crucial and exculpatory evidence from the grand jurors, the sheriff's chief investigator repeatedly provided false testimony about evidence that would have cleared Austin and Logan of felony and misdemeanor charges," attorney Dennis Wilenchik wrote, in a press release issued late Tuesday afternoon. Wilenchik filed a motion Tuesday, asking that the charges against the Flakes be thrown out and the case returned to the grand jury. Read: Motion for Remand to the Grand Jury The Flakes along with Logan's parents, Todd and MaLeisa Hughes, were indicted on multiple counts of animal cruelty after 21 dogs died in June, apparently suffocating after being left overnight in a 9x12 room. The Flakes, college students who live in Utah, were in Gilbert taking care of the dogs for a few days while the Hugheses were on vacation in Florida. The couples have attributed the dogs' deaths to a "freak accident," one that occurred when a dog chewed through a wire, cutting off electricity to the room's air conditioner in the middle of the night. Sheriff's investigators have disputed that, saying the evidence shows otherwise -- that these were intentional acts -- but they haven't elaborated publicly. Wilenchik's motion says sheriff's investigators testified to the grand jury that the air conditioner was "on, all night" and speculated that the room was likely just kept too hot -- never mentioning that the sheriff's own HVAC investigator had determined it was "very likely" that the evaporative coil had frozen during the night due to a lack of routine maintenance, causing the unit to fail. In addition, he wrote, records from Salt River Project showed that a dramatic drop in electrical usage during the wee hours that night, "consistent with a failed air conditioning unit". Yet grand jurors apparently weren't told that either. Here's an excerpt from Detective Marie Trombi's testimony, cited in Wilenchik's motion: GRAND JUROR: So the air was working and on until 5:30 that morning when he tried to fix it, Austin Flake tried to fix it, correct? That's what SRP said? THE WITNESS: That's going by the SRP records, yes. GRAND JUROR: That it was on? THE WITNESS: It was on, all night. GRAND JUROR: All night? THE WITNESS: All night. Or, as we now find out, perhaps not on all night. If true, that raises questions about how investigators can blame the Flakes for what happened, unless they were responsible for routine maintenance of the air conditioner. And it raises other, alarming questions, as well, about the general fairness of our justice system. Grand jury proceedings are held in secret. There is no chance for suspects to offer evidence, no opportunity for defense attorneys to be present or for the public to know what is said. Under our system, we rely on prosecutors and investigators to be fair, offering grand jurors not only the evidence that might lead to a criminal indictment against someone but the evidence that might clear them, as well. Wilenchick is raising substantial questions about whether that happened here. If he's correct, then there's a bigger story here than the tragic deaths of 21 dogs.
Mixing government and religion in Tempe Schools??? I suspect these silly rule only let the teachers at our government schools tell the kiddies the Christian version about sex eduction. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2014/12/02/tempe-school-board-approve-sex-ed-curriculum/19779219/ Will Tempe board finally approve sex ed curriculum? Cathryn Creno , The Republic | azcentral.com 9:23 p.m. MST December 2, 2014 The Tempe Union governing board is expected to vote on a proposed sex ed program on Wednesday. Since January, Tempe Union High School District parents, officials, community residents — and even some people from outside Tempe — have passionately debated a proposed sex-education curriculum for 10th- graders. The goal is a districtwide program that is sophisticated and informative enough for today's teens without violating the norms of conservative parents or breaking state law. Arizona law requires sex-ed programs to teach a preference for adoption, as well as to inform students about date-rape drugs, domestic abuse, sexually transmitted diseases and other dangers. On Wednesday, the board is set to review and possibly vote on a revised curriculum that officials hope will satisfy all sides. Last spring, the governing board directed district staffers to develop their own program and agreed to offer students a medically based abstinence- education program, "Choosing the Best," as an alternative. Parents also could keep their teens out of both programs. Discussion of the district program broke down in August, when the issue arose of whether a pregnancy starts with an egg's fertilization or its implantation in the uterus. The curriculum was sent back to district staff for clarification. Today, the board will discuss and possibly vote on a new document that includes the issue of when pregnancy begins. Here is a sample of the additions made to the curriculum since August: "It should also be noted that there are various beliefs as to when pregnancy begins. Some believe it begins upon the fertilization of the egg while others believe it occurs upon implantation of a fertilized egg. It is important to note that, depending on one's belief as to when pregnancy begins, certain contraception can be seen as either terminating pregnancy in some circumstances or preventing pregnancy." "For those who believe pregnancy begins at fertilization: Certain IUDs will terminate a pregnancy if they prevent a fertilized egg from attaching (implanting) to the uterus." "For those who believe pregnancy begins at implantation: IUDs will prevent a pregnancy by keeping a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus." "For those who believe pregnancy begins at fertilization, Plan B will terminate a pregnancy if the egg has been fertilized." "For those who believe pregnancy begins at implantation, Plan B will prevent a pregnancy from occurring." An IUD, or intrauterine device, is small, T-shaped device that is inserted into the uterus. Plan B, also known as the morning- after pill, is a pill that contains hormones. Observers expect today's meeting to be well-attended. More than 100 people have voiced their views at previous governing-board meetings on the issue. View the proposed curriculum The Tempe Union High School District's proposed sex education curriculum can be viewed online. Paper copies of the curriculum may be viewed in the district office, 500 W. Guadalupe Road in Tempe, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. through Nov. 3. The district governing board is expected to vote on the curriculum at a meeting that begins at 6 p.m. on Dec. 3 in the board room inside the district office.
They are building an apartment complex on the shores of Tempe Town Toilet???? That's insane!!!! Who would every want to live next to stinky Tempe Town Toilet???? Oddly when you read the article don't you think the city of Tempe is behaving like a communistic government that plans out everything on how to run your life. F*ck the Tempe government!!! I suspect they are just doing this in exchange for bribes, oops, I mean campaign contributions. For more info on the Tempe Town Toilet and Tempe Cesspool for the Arts check out the URLs at the end of the article. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2014/12/02/tempe-residents-file-legal-protest-opposing-town-lake-apartment/19785179/ Tempe residents file protest vs. Town Lake apartments Dianna M. Náñez, The Republic | azcentral.com 11:46 a.m. MST December 2, 2014 Tempe residents who oppose a developer's proposal to build a 256-unit apartment building on the northern shore of Town Lake have filed a legal protest that allows them to plead their case before the council Thursday, Dec. 4. The legal protest requires a public hearing for the appeal of the Development Review Commission's October 28 unanimous decision to approve the development plan review for Jefferson Town Lake apartments. MORE: Tempe council weighs 256-unit apartment at Town Lake The six-story apartment complex would be built in the Playa del Norte center, which houses a small retail complex, a hotel, a condo and an apartment building near Rural Road and the Red Mountain Freeway, on an estimated 1.6 acres. Tempe owns a portion of the land, which it would sell if the apartment complex is constructed. The hearing is scheduled for 7:30 p.m. Developer TDI Lifestyle Residential Communities' plan seeks council's approval for changes that include increased density, decreased landscaping compared with development standards approved for a condo project formerly proposed on the site and fewer parking spaces than required under Tempe zoning and development code. The legal zoning protest, filed by attorney Frances Slavin on behalf of North Shore Condominium Association, triggers a three-quarter council-majority vote to approve the project. That means if the full seven-member council votes, the developer would need six council members to vote in favor of the project. The Tempe City Council has long sought development for the northern shore site, as projects built on Town Lake contribute to lake operations and maintenance costs. But some Tempe taxpayers have balked at the council backing apartment developments on the remaining prime Town Lake lots, which cost millions to build and maintain and have been touted as the city's most valuable land. Business owners near the complex have said they support the apartment complex because it would result in a customer boost. Charles Huellmantel, the zoning attorney representing the developer, has said the proposed Town Lake apartment is a quality development that would serve as an architectural beacon at a major gateway into Tempe. Tempe Development Review Commission members at the Oct. 28 review said they supported the project because it met the high-density standards sought for that area of Tempe. The Jefferson Town Lake developer is seeking a density increase to 158 dwelling units per acre from 132, as well as a total of 256 units compared with the 196 units previously allowed for the condo project. Minimum landscaping for the site would decrease to 9.2 percent from 65 percent. The developer is also seeking a reduction in parking to 432 spaces from the 459 minimum required by Tempe code. Residents living in North Shore Condominiums next to the proposed apartment complex argue that the project is poor quality compared with the luxury condos previously slated for the site. Onyx, the condo project proposed in 2007, faltered in the down economy and was never built. Residents oppose the project's request for increased density. They say the developer rushed the project with little input from homeowners and has submitted a faulty traffic-impact study that minimized the traffic tied to the project. A Tempe report says the traffic-impact study is a draft that includes errors. The city development official who reviewed the study said the developer should submit a final study before being issued a building permit. Residents had asked development review commissioners for a 60-day continuance to review the project and last-minute changes made by the developer. The legal protest stresses the changes submitted by the developer with little time for the commission, city staff or residents to review. North Shore condo residents who spoke at last month's first council hearing on the proposed development said they were not opposed to development, but that the apartment as proposed would lower the value of their property. ---- For more on Tempe Town Toilet see: http://tempetowntoilet.100webspace.net/ And for more on Tempe Cesspool for the Arts see: http://tempe-cesspool-for-the-arts.tripod.com/
I suspect the Phoenix Police murdered this poor guy over a lousy ounce of marijuana. It's time to re-legalize ALL drugs and stop these police murders for a victimless drug war crimes that hurt no one!!!! And if you ask me the lousy snitch that reported this guy to the pigs is also guilty of murder. And gee, that reminds me of Andrew Myers and his Arizona Dispensary Association. I remember a while back reading an article which said they told the reporter they were turning in people to the Phoenix police or perhaps messy yard cops (zoning control) that they thought were cutting into their government monopoly of growing and selling medical marijuana. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2014/12/02/phoenix-officer-involved-shooting-abrk/19806379/ Phoenix police: Officer shoots, kills man at apartment complex Police say incident started with a tip on a possible drug transaction. Agnel Philip, The Republic | azcentral.com 11:30 p.m. MST December 2, 2014 A Phoenix police officer shot and killed a man who fought with the officer on Tuesday evening at a north Phoenix apartment complex, police said. Police said an officer was in the area of Interstate 17 and Greenway Road on an unrelated call at about 6 p.m. Tuesday when a resident of an apartment complex in the area alerted the officer to a potential drug transaction taking place in the area, said Sgt. Trent Crump, a Phoenix police spokesman. An officer approached the SUV the resident had pointed out and ended up in a physical fight with one of the people inside, Crump said. The man inside the SUV then ran toward an apartment complex near 25th Avenue and Beck Lane and the officer chased after him, Crump said. The two were involved in another struggle when shots were fired. Police did not say whether the suspect had a weapon at the time, Crump said. Officers found a weapon and what appeared to be marijuana in the SUV after the shooting, he said. Police could not provide an immediate update on the officer's condition after the media briefing but earlier in the evening a spokesman said no police officers were injured in the incident.
How can a Phoenix elected official abuse his power to get re-elected in the next election? How about give automatic pay raises which adverage $2,500 to 12,000 Phoenix city employees. That certainly will get you a few votes, like almost 12,000 votes. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2014/12/03/phoenixs-automatic-pay-raises-draw-scrutiny/19818243/ Phoenix's automatic pay raises draw scrutiny Dustin Gardiner, The Republic | azcentral.com 10:13 p.m. MST December 2, 2014 When new employees walk through the doors at Phoenix City Hall, they are almost guaranteed a raise every year. After about eight years, bonuses typically replace the raises — and the amounts generally grow year after year. It's a system several city leaders say spends taxpayer money unwisely or rewards workers equally regardless of individual performance. They want reforms and are pushing to create a private-sector-style performance system. Efforts to change the pay system face fervent opposition from some employee unions, and human-resource experts say the city may have difficulty implementing the concept for some city workers, such as police officers and firefighters. Last year, the vast majority of rank-and-file city employees — 96.7 percent — received a raise or bonus, according to data analyzed by The Arizona Republic. In other words, about 12,000 of the 12,400 regular city workers got a pay bump. And the payouts weren't small: The average raise was more than $2,500, or 4.6 percent. The average bonus, given to employees at the top of the salary ladder for a position, was nearly $2,200. Phoenix's raises and bonuses continue despite a common perception that city employees have seen their wages cut in recent years. Although it's true the city has made compensation cuts, the raise and bonus system remains in place, and many workers are earning more overall. The bill for such pay increases and bonuses topped $28.1 million this year and comes as the city faces a budget crisis. Just last spring, Phoenix faced a budget deficit that led it to enact a new water-bill tax for residents and cut employee compensation. Early projections show a $14 million to $54 million shortfall is possible next year. City leaders started advocating system reforms three years ago, when the pay increases sparked debate in the midst of budget cuts and a fierce mayoral election. They wanted to create a "pay-for-performance" system that awards top achievers and removes the automatic raise and bonus amounts for the rest. In recent years, former City Manager David Cavazos said creating a new pay-for-performance system was one of the city's top priorities as it prepared to negotiate new contracts with its employee unions. But the city has made few changes.The City Council approved new labor contracts in May with no real talk of pay-system reforms. As negotiations started, city officials faced a $38 million deficit and dropped the issue of reform as they pushed labor unions to accept compensation cuts. Most of the unions agreed to reduced benefits and trimmed a second retirement plan, but the city left the raises and bonuses in place. Now, council members on both sides of the political aisle agree that the city's approach is outdated and that it needs to more closely mirror private business. "Now is the time to develop this system," said Mayor Greg Stanton, a Democrat who has voted for contracts with the raises and bonuses. "I don't think you're going to see those numbers (96 percent) in the future." Yet the council disagrees whether the aim is to decrease money for pay raises overall or simply distribute the money more competitively. City Manager Ed Zuercher said he is committed to overhauling the city's raise and bonus practices if it can be done in cooperation with its seven employee unions. He said the goal is to create a system that allows top performers to stand out from the satisfactory, not cut employee pay. "What the system we have today doesn't do is differentiate among those 96 percent who are doing the right thing and working hard," Zuercher said. "The idea is absolutely the right one. It's where the world is heading." Automatic raises? What should be considered a true pay-for-performance plan? That question is at the heart of the debate over reforming Phoenix's practices for rewarding raises and bonuses to city workers. Union leaders say the city already has such a system as it conducts performance reviews for its employees every year. "I don't understand why (this issue) keeps popping up," said Ron Ramirez, union president for the Administrative, Supervisory, Professional and Technical Employees Association. "We do do pay for performance. It's not a loosey-goosey criteria." But Zuercher, former City Manager Cavazos and several council members have said that although the city might appear to have such a system on paper, it's not a strong setup in practice. Phoenix currently has a pass/fail evaluation that allows nearly all employees to earn a passing grade and receive the same raise or bonus as their peers at the same experience level, regardless of whether an individual exceeds expectations or does just enough to get by. Like many government agencies or companies with unions, Phoenix has a "step-pay" system that allows employees to get a set raise — typically 4 percent to above 5 percent — every year as long as they pass their review. The salary ladder includes up to 10 steps. New employees can generally advance to the second step after six months and once every year thereafter. If they are promoted, they start a new set of steps. For example, a garbage-truck driver could get hired at Step 1, which pays $34,674 a year. After about 71/2 years of satisfactory reviews, the employee could top out at Step 9, earning $47,923 a year. An employee who reaches the top of the pay range for a position will begin receiving a "longevity" bonus. Some public-safety employees can collect raises and bonuses at the same time. Vice Mayor Jim Waring, a Republican, called the city's pay increase system a "dinosaur of the past." Unions negotiated to create the step-raise plan more than 50 years ago, and the longevity-bonus system followed in the early 1990s. Waring has raised concerns that the city has created an unsustainable compensation system, noting that the percentage of employees receiving raises outpaces anything he has seen in the private or government sectors. He said it's telling that employee unions opted to take a compensation cut rather than give up the step raise or bonus ladder. "They didn't want to turn off the spigot of automatic increases," Waring said. "You're saying 96 percent of people were worthy of a bonus or a raise? Things have been on autopilot in a host of areas." The city only gives pay increases to employees who pass their performance review. But few employees ever receive an unsatisfactory mark — only 64 workers failed their reviews last year. That's less than 1 percent. Phoenix has taken some steps to tighten its rules. The city previously allowed some workers to collect a bonus even if they failed a review. Labor-relations administrator Cindy Bezaury said that stopped this year. On top of the step raises and longevity bonuses, the city also can give employees cost-of-living pay bumps. It has been at least five years since the city approved the additional raise. Still, the size of Phoenix workers' pay increases can often outpace the private sector. According to a 2014 reportfrom WorldatWork, a human-resources research association, the average merit increase for U.S. workers is 2.7 percent for midlevel and 4.1 percent for top achievers. Phoenix employees in the step system typically get larger raises, though Zuercher notes that they don't get the additional bonuses and stock options seen in the private sector. That said, many city workers have plusher retirement benefits than those in the private sector. Most Phoenix employees earn a pension and deferred compensation, a second retirement plan similar to a 401(k). Compare that with private-sector employers who've largely moved employees to 401(k) systems. Kerry Chou, WorldatWork's senior compensation-practice leader, looked at the raise and bonus data city officials provided The Republic. He said the percentage of employees receiving a raise or bonus might not be unusual for a unionized workforce, but the average increase appears high for the job market. Chou said the city's pay structure isn't ideal for recruiting and retaining the most talented workers because research suggests high achievers are "more likely to be drawn to organizations that have a strong pay-for-performance post." On average, private-sector companies gave raises or bonuses to roughly 89 percent of their workforces, according to WorldatWork's 2014 salary survey. Impacts weighed Although Phoenix's pay raises and bonuses are widespread, the increases may come as a surprise to many residents who've heard employees have taken cuts the past six years. The 3.6 percent compensation cut being taken by the city's seven union groups doesn't prevent them from receiving raises or bonuses. An additional 0.9 percent compensation cut will take effect next fiscal year, which starts July 1, 2015. Phoenix will spend about $10.3 million on new raises and increases to bonus amounts this fiscal year while it saves about $24.5 million through new compensation cuts. Those figures don't include the city's pension costs that increase as a result of giving raises and bonuses over time. Most of the cuts come out of fringe benefits, such as the second retirement plan and uniform allowances. Some unions also were allowed to count ending the practice of "pension spiking," seen as the inflation of an employee's pension benefit before retirement, as part of their compensation cut. Only one of the city's unions, which represents landscapers and street-maintenance and waste workers, agreed to a base pay cut. Waring and Councilman Sal DiCiccio, a Republican, have called the pay cuts an illusion, suggesting the city has downplayed the fact that most employees still receive raises or bonuses. They blasted the city for giving automatic pay bumps when it raised feesand taxes for residents. But Zuercher and other city leaders say although the system needs reform, the city must be able to attract and retain talented workers. For them, the focus isn't so much on cutting spending for pay increases as it is on recognizing employees who exceed expectations. For Firefighter Beth Espinoza, a 29-year veteran of the department, the concept raises concerns for rank-and-file workers. She said it can be difficult to evaluate police officers and firefighters with quotas given the unpredictable and dangerous nature of their jobs. "Would we do it on the amount of calls?" Espinoza questioned. "Per fire? Per (emergency-medical-service) call? How would you measure that?" She said employees are also wary of any system that gives managers too much leeway to write subjective reviews. Unions across the country pushed for step-pay systems to protect workers from the personal biases of management. City officials and human-resource professionals acknowledge that implementing such a system faces logistical hurdles. For starters, Stanton and some council members say the city should leave public-safety workers out of the mix, but there are challenges for other types of workers, as well. Would a garbage-truck driver be evaluated based on how much trash he or she collects? What about utility workers who keep water and sewer systems functioning? "Pay for performance sounds great in theory," said Neil Reichenberg, who leads an association of government human-resources managers. "But when you look at it, particularly in the public sector, with some jobs it can be difficult to make those determinations." Reichenburg, executive director of the International Public Management Association for Human Resources, said he didn't know of a major city or county that has created the type of system Phoenix has discussed. However, he said, it's not an impossible task. A starting place could be at the top of the city food chain. Zuercher said he is especially concerned about providing a performance-pay system after a wave of senior staffers departed City Hall in recent years. Many retired from the city to start drawing a pension and work in government elsewhere. Unlike rank-and-file workers, Phoenix doesn't have a set raise or bonus system for top managers, and most have received only one increase in the past five years. Stanton agrees that change should start at the top. In a memo to city management last year, Stanton and council members Thelda Williams and Daniel Valenzuela said the compensation system too often "fails to recognize the difference between satisfactory and excellent performance." How the council intends to make that a reality isn't clear. Officials have taken no formal steps to prepare the city to transition to a pay-for-performance system, something everyone acknowledges the city would have to do when it negotiates new labor contracts in spring 2016. The mayor said reform will succeed only if it has the support of the unions, saying, "I won't support a draconian system." He said the city is already asking many employees to do more with less given it has shrunk the workforce through attrition. However, Waring and other council members have said elected leaders can impose contracts on employees if the unions don't agree. "This idea that our hands are tied," Waring said, "at some point, somebody has to exhibit some leadership and say, 'We're going to do something different.' " How cuts and raises impact city workers' paychecks While Phoenix employees face a compensation cut this year, many will receive pay raises or bonuses at the same time. The combination of raises and cuts can make it difficult to gauge whether a city worker is earning more or less money overall. To better understand the impact of Phoenix's often-criticized pay system, The Republic looked at its effect on a variety of employees in city jobs. The numbers reflect changes to a typical worker's compensation this fiscal year, which runs July 1-June 30. Next year, workers will receive similar raises or bonuses and take an additional 0.9 percent compensation cut. The examples listed are a sampling of year-over-year changes to compensation based on years of service and position. Bottom-line figures don't reflect compensation increases or cuts that have carried over from previous years. An individual's salary and bonus will vary greatly based on the number of years worked. Those at the top of the salary ladder for a position typically begin receiving longevity bonuses after a year.
Again, you think you're going to get a fair trial??? Don't make me laugh. The cops will commit perjury, oops, I mean testilie to railroad you for whatever they want to rail road you for. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/gilbert/2014/12/02/gilbert-green-acre-dog-deaths-case-jury-misled-attorneys-say/19807723/ Attorney: Detective misled grand jury in Green Acre dog tragedy Jim Walsh, The Republic | azcentral.com 8 p.m. MST December 2, 2014 A defense attorney representing the son of U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., accused a sheriff's detective of presenting false or misleading testimony to a grand jury and asked that charges stemming from the Green Acre Dog Boarding case be presented to another grand jury for reconsideration. Attorney Dennis Wilenchik argued in his motion that his clients, Austin and Logan Flake, did nothing wrong. The air-conditioning unit where the dogs were housed at the Gilbert-area site froze because of a clogged air filter, he said, and that a chewed wire in the room had nothing to do with it. "The reason it froze is the air intake was reduced by the dirty air filter,'' Wilenchik said. He accused Maricopa County Sheriff's Detective Marie Trombi, of falsely testifying that the air-conditioning unit was operating throughout the night of June 19 and the early morning of June 20. Salt River Project records prove it went off at 2 a.m., Wilenchik said. The motion presents the Flakes' defense for the first time. The Flakes are charged with multiple counts of animal abuse and animal cruelty stemming from the deaths of more than 20 dogs that were kept in the 9-foot-by-12 foot "dog room'' that night. Wilenchik's motion also alleges prosecutors had evidence that the air unit froze but that Trombi never revealed the information to grand jurors. The Flakes put the dogs in the room at 11 p.m. on June 19, as they had throughout the week while they served as caretakers for the kennel's owners, Jesse Todd Hughes and Maleisa Hughes, who were on vacation in Florida. The motion said the Flakes were following the Hughes instructions. But when Austin Flake checked on the dogs at 5:30 a.m. the next morning, he found most of them dead and others ill in a room full of vomit and feces. Flake took the dogs outside and put water on them in an attempt to cool them down, but did not call a veterinarian. The Hugheses also are charged with animal cruelty and abuse, but face an additional fraud charge on grounds that they misled dog owners into believing that their pets would roam free throughout the house. Wilenchik's motion said that the prosecution had a report from an air-conditioning expert that concluded it was "very likely'' that the air-conditioning unit froze, "render(ing) the unit completely ineffective.'' But Trombi never revealed this information to the grand jury, the motion said. Dog deaths at Gilbert boarding site: Photos of dogs at Green Acre Dog Boarding. (Photo: Maricopa County Sheriff's Office) "Instead, she provided false testimony to the grand jury once again by testifying that the report showed that the unit "was working,'' according to the motion. Wilenchik said that Austin Flake mistakenly thought that repairing the chewed wire fixed the air conditioning. He said the unit actually thawed with the passage of time and started working on it's own when he turned it back on later that morning. If Wilenchik's motion were granted by a Maricopa County Superior Court judge, the charges against the Flakes would be dismissed without prejudice. Prosecutors could present the case to a new grand jury, charge the Flakes in a complaint or decide not to pursue charges. --- Green Acre kennel dogs Carsen and Daisy Breed: Bernese Mountain dogs Days spent at kennel: 2 Owner(s): Anthony and Valerie Collins Carmen Breed: Boxer Days spent at kennel: 2 Owner(s): Joe Montez Ellie Breed: Boston Terrier Days spent at kennel: 5 Owner(s): Jason McIntyre Mia Breed: Miniature Pincher Days spent at kennel: 5* Owner(s): Jason McIntyre *Mia survived after McIntyre told Hughes to take her to the vet. Zed Breed: Doberman Pincher Days spent at kennel: 5 Owner(s): Jason McIntyre Cloe Breed: Shitzu Days spent at kennel: 12 Planned pick-up day: June 21 Owner(s): Cary and Jacqueline Heath Happy Breed: Golden Retriever Days spent at kennel: 12 Planned pick-up day: June 21 Owner(s): Cary and Jacqueline Heath Rosie Breed: Laso Apso Days spent at kennel: 12 Planned pick-up date: June 21 Owner(s): Cary and Jacqueline Heath Sherman and Parker Breed: Golden Retrievers Days at kennel: 25 Planned pick-up date: June 24 Owner(s): David and Shannon Gillette Sonny Corleone Breed: Unknown Days spent at kennel: 5 Owner(s): Jesus Cabrales Roxy Breed: Queensland Heeler mix Days spent at kennel: Unknown Owner(s): Janet Miller Snickers Breed: Toy Manchester Terrier Days spent at kennel: 10 Planned pick-up date: June 23 Owner(s): Ashley Branch Tonka Breed: Labrador hound Days spent at kennel: 10 Planned pick-up date: June 23 Owner(s): Ashley Branch Francis Breed: Pit bull Days spent at kennel: 10 Planned pick-up date: June 23 Owner(s): Ashley Branch Buick Breed: English Bulldog Days spent at kennel: 10 Planned pick-up date: June 23 Owner(s): Ashley Branch Tiny Breed: Great Dane Days spent at kennel: 10 Planned pick-up date: June 23 Owner(s): Ashley Branch Koda Breed: Yellow Labrador Retriever mix Days spent at kennel: 4 Owner(s): Martin and Barbara Pedraza Zoey Breed: Black Labrador Retriever Days spent at kennel: 2 Owner(s): Michelle and David Zipser Cash Breed: Beagle mix Days spent at kennel: 2 Owner(s): Michelle and David Zipser Maci Breed: Great Pyrenees and Anatolian Shepherd mix Days spent at kennel: 18 Planned pick-up date: June 25 Owner(s): Debbie Ortiz Remington Breed: Chocolate Labrador Retriever Days spent at kennel: 2 Owner(s): Zachary Wicker and Heather Bennett Valor Breed: Belgian Malinois mix Days spent at kennel: 2* Owner(s): Zachary Wicker and Heather Bennett *Valor escaped but was later found dead. Sandy Breed: Pug Days spent at kennel: 3 Owner(s): Jan Wohlfert
http://eastvalleytribune.com/arizona/politics/article_ccf2b5ba-771d-11e4-8dd5-63ec85d85e83.html State holds off on enforcement of 'revenge porn' bill Posted: Friday, November 28, 2014 10:30 am By Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services State officials have agreed not to pursue anyone from book sellers to Internet posters under a new “revenge porn” law, at least not for the time being. The order signed late Wednesday by U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton gives Rep. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, a chance to recraft the controversial measure to see if he can address the concerns of challengers that the law violates the First Amendment. If Mesnard is successful, the lawsuit goes away. Mesnard told Capitol Media Services he's willing to give it a try. And he already has some ideas in mind. He said some of the concerns raised by the American Civil Liberties Union and others are “pretty far fetched.” Mesnard said he does not want to dilute the legislation to the point where it is no longer meaningful. The law approved earlier this year makes it a felony to “intentionally disclose, display, distribute, publish, advertise or offer” a photo, video, film or digital recording of someone else who is naked “if the person knows or should have known that the depicted person has not consented to the disclosure.” The legislation covers not just images of nudity but also anyone engaged in any sex act. Offenders could end up in prison for up to 2 1/2 years — or 3 3/4 years if the person is recognizable. The target is so-called “revenge porn” where someone may have taken a compromising photo during a relationship that was not meant to be shared with others. Mesnard said it becomes an entirely different situation when the relationship ends, often badly, and the images get posted online. The ACLU and a private law firm representing booksellers sued, charging the law would make criminals out of those who sell, display or simply show images of others who are naked but have not granted specific permission. ACLU attorney Lee Rowland said the result is a “chilling effect” on merchants, causing them to pull books from their shelves for fear that some prosecutors will use the law against them. Rowland said the law is so broad that a mother who shows a naked photo of her baby to a neighbor also could be charged with breaking the law. The deal approved by Bolton is based on a promise by Robert Ellman, the state's solicitor general, not to use the new law while efforts to rework it are underway. The attorneys for 14 of the 15 counties also signed the agreement; Yuma County is expected to join the pact after Thanksgiving. Mesnard said he already is looking at changes. One might be to come up with a more restrictive definition of “nudity” to exclude some images that otherwise might result in criminal charges. Mesnard also said he will explore a “public interest” exception. In essence, anyone whose publication or distribution of an image that would otherwise fit under the law could escape prosecution if there is a legitimate public purpose. That would cover things like the news photo of a Vietnamese girl running down the road naked after her clothes were burned off with napalm. Mesnard said he's not convinced all the issues raised by challengers are legitimate. That includes the claim that a mother could end up behind bars for showing off the naked picture of her baby. “That's an example of something that really wouldn't apply,” he said. “The mother would give consent of any nudity of their child,” Mesnard explained, meeting the existing exception in the law for situations where there is consent. Somewhat trickier is the question of books which may have photos or images of someone who is naked. But Mesnard said he believes challengers are looking for problems where none exist. “The bill only applies when a bookstore knew or should have known they haven't consent,” he said. “I don't know why a bookstore would be expected to know that.” Mesnard said he's willing to make adjustments — but only up to a point. “We've just got to be careful to where we don't water this down to where the bill becomes meaningless and is simply a feel-good statement,” he said, and the people who are posting those images of their former lovers no longer feel at risk. “We're seeing this more and more,” Mesnard said. “And if at the end of the day we just put something in statute that has no teeth and has a net that's so narrow that few, if any cases will ever come under it, well, then we've just wasted everybody's time.” In accepting the agreement, Bolton rejected a separate bid by challengers for a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the law. But the judge said they can make the request again if efforts to work out an acceptable version of the law prove unacceptable. Follow Howard Fischer on Twitter at @azcapmedia.
Paige: How taxpayers can get burned by solar scams Solar power is great if you live in the boondocks and it's too expensive to connect to the grid. But it's doesn't come close to being economically competitive with power from the grid in cities. http://eastvalleytribune.com/columns/east_valley_voices/article_ba539cf8-7763-11e4-bf63-57343ee45c94.html Paige: How taxpayers can get burned by solar scams Posted: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 4:45 am Guest Commentary by Sean Paige “Buyer beware” is always a good rule of thumb when weighing some “deal” that seems too good to be true. But it should be “taxpayer beware” or “ratepayer beware” when the “deal” in question involves a solar power system, since the bargain being offered often involves pilfering from one pocket (taxpayers) to fill another (solar power companies). The Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA) has been doing extensive research into the shadier side of solar energy. And one of many questionable practices we’ve seen is how some politically connected solar companies have found sly ways to pocket tax credits for themselves that should be going to their customers. Here’s how the “deal” works. These companies discovered that if they lease rooftop solar systems, rather than sell them outright — something that appeals to homeowners confronted with the steep up-front costs of such systems — the companies themselves can claim the federal tax credits, as well as all state and local incentives that are being offered. They’re sometimes double- and triple-dipping, raking in taxpayer money not just from Washington, D.C., but from state or local governments that offer subsidies. They’ve tapped a steady stream of taxpayer dollars to keep themselves afloat. And their growing army of lobbyists won’t surrender that revenue stream willingly, meaning the funds could keep flowing long after this industry should be standing on its own. The dollar figures involved are potentially huge, given the fad-like status solar energy enjoys. For example, California’s Go Solar California! campaign, a “joint effort of the California Energy Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission,” recently found that the California Solar Initiative has cost state taxpayers there more than $1.5 billion. One recent news report indicated that SolarCity received “over $400 million in cash from the state and federal governments,” plus commissions from the financing the company arranges for homeowners. But California is only one market in which SolarCity plays. It’s here in Arizona, too, and will go wherever its “business” model is backed by generous subsidies and helpful government mandates. What happens when the subsidies stop, or the market-creating mandates go away, isn’t a question enough people are asking. We’ve all seen how easy money and government interventions (even when arguably well-intended) can create “bubbles.” We know how badly things can go when bubbles burst. It very much appears as if government subsidies and mandates are creating a solar bubble, by propping-up an entire industry that could implode once those supports are withdrawn. Despite its diversion of tax dollars, and New York State’s recent promise to build the company a $750 million factory, SolarCity is posting big losses and has some industry analysts jittery. Yet the promise of future government revenue, and the confidence that it will enjoy favorable treatment from political friends, has the company undertaking a massive expansion. Companies that take such chances with private funds are one thing: companies that use public funds for risky ventures are another, since non-customers and taxpayers are effectively enabling such bubble-inflating behaviors. This means taxpayers are propping up a company that is arguably taking advantage of consumers, who will also be left in the lurch if the scheme falls apart — all to bankroll the expansion of an energy technology that, despite all the hype, still meets a relatively tiny share of America’s overall energy needs. Who’ll pick up the pieces if the solar bubble bursts? Who picked up the pieces when the housing bubble burst? Investing in solar power is fine, when private dollars are spent and risked. But when public funds are used, we all have a right and an obligation to take a harder look at what these companies are doing with that money. • Sean Paige is a senior fellow with the Taxpayers Protection Alliance (www.ProtectingTaxpayers.org). |