I surprised many people when I announced earlier this year my support for putting a 1-cent-per-dollar sales-tax increase on the ballot. Do not misunderstand me. The revenue generated from such a tax increase (less than $900 million in current economic conditions) will not entirely solve the problem. I also recognize the distinct possibility that voters may reject any such proposal. In either case, I will continue to advocate for more reductions in state spending to balance the budget.And here he sounds as if he is somewhat supportive of voting for the tax increase once it makes it to the ballot!
We have lost enough precious time already. The question needs to be asked: Are you willing to pay, in addition to your current tax burdens, another penny on the dollar in sales tax in order to provide more revenue for your government? There may not be an official declaration that Arizona is in a state of emergency, but in my view, we're in one.This is real disappointment. Burns should not claim to be a conservative if he is advocating for sales tax increase referral. The article should have been more correctly named, "Republican caves into pressure for 18% sales tax increase and fails to call out Governor."
Letter to the editor in the Arizona Republic from Barnett Lotstein of the County Attorney's Office
Sunday's editorial ("Elected officials allowed costly fight to rage on") and E.J. Montini's column ("Thomas vs. the supervisors: The dog, the hydrant and us") both hit and missed the mark.
The editorial accurately described the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors' attempt to stymie the appointment of special prosecutors as "foot-dragging designed to protect one of its own - (Don) Stapley."
The Editorial Board misfired in attempting to characterize both Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the board as "wallflowers." That describes the board, not Sheriff Arpaio. It's safe to say that Arpaio doesn't take his marching orders from anybody except voters.
Those of us who work regularly with the sheriff know that Chief Deputy David Hendershott does not set policy. He is a competent, effective second in command.
The Editorial Board hit the bulls' eye in characterizing County Manager David Smith as the board's "generalissimo." His agenda of increasing his power has resulted in a search-and-destroy mission against elected officials, including the county attorney, sheriff and treasurer. If anyone needs to be reined in, it is "generalissimo" Smith.
In a more light-hearted vain, while the editorial writer has chosen to compare me to Othello's Iago, I would suggest I am more like Tonto to the Lone Ranger.
As to Montini, I suggest that the only dog in his rhetorical inquiry is the Board of Supervisors and that the public is the hydrant. I will not describe what the dog is doing so as not offend his sensibilities and to ensure that my comments are fit for inclusion in a family newspaper.
- Barnett Lotstein,Phoenix
The writer is a special assistant county attorney.
This is to inform you that Ariz.Atty.Gen.Op. I88-052 dated April 26, 1988 has been withdrawn. That opinion erroneously relied upon two earlier Attorney General opinions, Ariz.Atty.Gen.Ops. I79–186 and I78–55, which had incorrectly interpreted art. VII, § 15 of the Arizona Constitution.Incidentally, the Supervisors never protested when the Yavapai County Attorney hired Mel Bowers to handle the first Stapley prosecution. Bowers is a resident of Maricopa County, not Yavapai County, so he is practicing law for the Yavapai County Attorney's Office as a nonresident. And there are many Deputy County Attorneys who work for various County Attorney's Offices around the state who do not reside in the county of the office they work in. This is a discredited and reversed argument that the Supervisors have put forth and by ignoring the AG opinion reversing the erroneous legal grounds they rely upon, Wade Swanson should be expecting a bar complaint for malpractice. It is outrageous that someone with that little experience is paid $175,000/yr by the taxpayers to issue incorrect legal advice. Any first year law student knows to look up a law to see if it had been reversed.
You had initially asked whether, pursuant to A.R.S. § 15–253(B) [FN1] the Attorney General would review a school opinion written by a private attorney who was not a resident of the county (non-qualified elector), but who was nevertheless representing the district with the consent of the county attorney.
The Arizona Constitution, was amended in 1972 to remove the requirement that a “person elected or appointed to any office of trust or profit” must be a qualified elector of the political division he serves. Art. VII, § 15 now limits this requirement to only those holding elective office, providing as follows:Every person elected or appointed to any elective office of trust or profit under the authority of the State, or any political division or any municipality thereof, shall be a qualified elector of the political division or municipality in which such person shall be elected.(Emphasis added.) See Laws 1971 (1st Reg.Sess.) Senate Concurrent Resolution 9. [FN2]
Because an attorney hired by a school district with the consent of the County Attorney does not hold an elective office, legal representation by a non-resident attorney of a local school district governing board is permitted. Therefore, the opinions of that attorney may be reviewed by the Attorney General, pursuant to A.R.S. § 15–253(B).
