Joe Cobb is one of the two named plaintiffs in the recent court
challenge to the City of Glendale
P&G: Can you briefly tell me about yourself (where are you
from, what do you do, etc.)?
JC: I am retired, age 68. Born at USMA West Point , New
York
P&G: Why did you seek to have the Glendale City
JC: I believe it is fundamentally immoral
to take tax money (with the tool of coercion, compulsory exaction) and give the
funds to a private, for-profit organization. The Arizona Constitution, Article
9, Section 7, http://goldwaterinstitute.org/sites/default/files/Regifting%20the%20Gift%20Clause.pdf,
prohibits giving tax money to corporations:
[N]either
the state, nor any county, city, town, municipality, or other subdivision of
the state shall ever give or loan its credit in the aid of, or make any
donation or grant, by subsidy or otherwise, to any individual, association, or
corporation, or become a subscriber to, or a shareholder in, any company or
corporation, or become a joint owner with any person, company, or corporation,
except as to such ownerships as may accrue to the state by operation or
provision of law or as authorized by law solely for investment of the monies in
the various funds of the state.
So, as you can see, not only is my personal sense of Right vs.
Wrong at issue here, I have our Constitution on my side.
More on my attorney's track record suing local governments that violate Arizona's Constitution, Art.9, Sec.7, "Gift Clause":
We have a hammer and the smelly political insider cronyism of the Glendale government is an anvil.
P&G: It's interesting that you have cited Arizona
JC: One files motions on the basis of the
development of a case. The earlier Goldwater law suit, filed two years earlier
as a Gift Clause action, is still active and in the Maricopa court, but the
judge in that case was not available to hear the further – and new – arguments
in this case. But this case has been joined with the older case and will next
be heard in front of the original judge. The Gift Clause action will require
the city “to sign” and then be ordered to defend its action; we cannot expect
the court to issue a prior restraint. The Goldwater attorneys attempted a prior
restraint before the city voted June 8 and the judge said he didn’t have the
power to enjoin a legislative body not to vote. But everything goes back to the
Gift Clause.
Judge Fink ruled (1) this is not an “emergency” law, thus it
cannot take effect (the contract cannot be signed) until the period allowed by
law for a Referendum petition has run, or a Referendum election has given
approval; and (2) the court will not substitute its opinion/judgment over the
claim by the city that “professional services” – which are exceptions to the
city charter requirement for competitive bidding – does include “hockey arena
management” in the same category as physician, attorney, architect, et al.
services. The judge had asked the city attorneys whether a high-rise window
washing company was an exempt professional service, too, but did not take that
obvious play on the concept of “professional service” into his final order.
P&G: Hypothetically, if the management agreement alone, not
including the lease, had been subject to competitive bidding, would you still
have sought to oppose it?
JC: We would have sued after the fact on
the grounds of Gift Clause violation. The city has never attempted to defend
itself against the charges of gift violation, but has instead refused to
release documents from the closed-door negotiations with team buyers.
P&G: While Judge Fink's opinion denied the relief you and Ken
Jones sought in your complaint on behalf of the taxpayers against Glendale to
invalidate the ordinance granting the City Manager and City Clerk the authority
to enter into a 20 year lease agreement for the Jobing.com arena, the taxpayers
were still free to collect signatures to refer the ordinance to the ballot via
public referendum. How many signatures do you require, and how is that number
calculated? When must you have the signatures by and how is that date calculated?
JC: 10% of the city vote for Council on
November 2, 2010, which is 11,309 voters is needed as signatures on our
Referendum petitions. The deadline is 30 days from (1) June 8 – city’s view; or
(2) June 15 – our attorneys’ view. The later date is when we actually were
allowed to obtain blank petition forms by the court order overturning the claim
of “emergency” status.
P&G: Assuming the city's view is correct, the deadline would
be July 8, which is a Sunday. Would the deadline be extended to Monday, July 9
as a result?
JC: That is common practice: “next
possible business day.”
P&G: Do you think there will be legal action brought by Glendale
JC: Certainly. They fight hard.
P&G: I have seen Glendale
JC: Pam Hanna, city clerk, told us we had
to use the voter turnout from the 2008 mayoral election, which is the number in
the media you cite. She has been corrected, as we know when the anti-sales tax
initiative was turned in on July 5 by a different group of Glendale
P&G: How many signatures do you currently have?
JC: No comment.
P&G: Timing is often the best weapon in legal challenges such
as this. If you are successful in getting the referendum on the November ballot,
it could likely scuttle the proposed deal to the Jamison group without it ever
being voted upon. Is there any provision in Arizona
JC: No.
P&G: Let's assume that you are successful in getting a referendum
on the Glendale City Council ordinance on the November ballot, that the Jamison
group does not pull out prior to the vote, and the vote goes in favor of
Glendale. What would be your next course of action?
JC: If the contract is signed, even in mid-November
after an upholding Referendum vote, we would ask the courts to apply the Gift
Clause prohibition to the subsidy. Arizona was
set up as a republic in 1912 with many rights retained by citizens that under
other U.S.
