Prescott eNews

It was a statement that kind of went unnoticed - it didn't create much of a stir at the time. But, the accusation that Georgene Lockwood made during the debate against Carol Springer last week at Las Fuentes was pretty strong. (Republican Candidates for County Supervisor Debate)

"...The supervisors, and you may not know about this, the supervisors did go to the state legislature and ask for a half-cent increase in the sales tax cap. It did not pass, but Yavapai County was one of the three counties that was most strenuous in stressing this increase in the half cent sales tax," Lockwood said.

Springer responded briefly, "That's an incorrect statement. The County Supervisor's Association as a group voted to support the question of the legislature to give counties the opportunity to increase the taxes, I was not one of those supervisors."

Lockwood answered, "I'm not going to argue, but after the meeting, if any of you would like to see an email from the head of the County Supervisor's Association, to that effect, I have it with me."

So, who's telling the truth?

When asked for the documentation, Lockwood offered a copy of an email from Craig Sullivan to Tom O'Halleran, with copies of the proposed legislation attached (download a copy of the O'Halleran email here). Craig Sullivan is the Executive Director of the County Supervisor's Association of Arizona (CSA). Tom O'Halleran, of course, is the Arizona State Senator for District 1.

In that email, which discussed the CSA desire for the ability for counties to increase the sales tax from 1/2 cent to 1 cent, Sullivan wrote, "The proposal was endorsed by all 15 counties. Coconino, Yavapai and Navajo were the most interested in the proposal. Others, though they had no immediate plans, were interested in the expanded authority as a tool for possible use in the future."

However, Carol Springer's name wasn't mentioned at all in this email.

A Conversation with Lockwood

We spoke with Lockwood after the debates were over, trying to clarify the issue.

Prescott eNews: "I just wanted to ask you about those emails. Because when I looked through it, I didn't see Carol's name mentioned anywhere."

Lockwood: "Ok, here's the deal. If you look at the paragraph that says the three counties that most promoted it were Yavapai, Coconino and I forget what the third one was. Ok?"

Prescott eNews: "But it said that those were the most interested."

Lockwood: "Yeah, the most interested. The Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, is the one that represents us at the County Supervisor's Association. And, again, I didn't say her, I said the Board. She said she didn't know anything about it. That can't be true. That can't be true."

Prescott eNews: "I'll go back and listen to the tape about whether or not she said she didn't know anything about it."

Lockwood: "I wouldn't have supported that. Ask Chip Davis, he said he did not know anything about it. Talk to Tom O'Halleran. What they tried to do is raise the ceiling from a half to a full cent and with a unanimous vote of the Board of Supervisors, we would never get a vote, we would never get a chance to vote. I don't believe that very many of the citizens of this county knew anything about this legislation. I don't think that's right. I think we should know what our supervisors are supporting in the legislature. I want to know that's what my supervisors... and this was all fifteen counties. I think we all should have known that. They're raising taxes."

At that point, Jim Lockwood, Georgene's husband, stated, "And, she's the chairman, and she's the one on that committee. so, if she said she knows nothing about it, and wasn't for it, and they say she was, it's confusing, isn't it?"

Prescott eNews: "I'm going to go back and listen to the tape."

Curiouser and Curiouser

So, is Springer trying to deny the facts? Did she really support this strenuously? What was her role in getting this legislation through?

Let's start with Lockwood's assertion that Springer said she didn't know anything about it. That's simply not true. Springer's words were, "That's an incorrect statement. The County Supervisor's Association as a group voted to support the question of the legislature to give counties the opportunity to increase the taxes, I was not one of those supervisors."

At no time did Springer deny knowing about it. And, saying that Springer denied knowing about it is an absolute mischaracterization of her words.

Next, it's important to remember that this was legislation being proposed by the CSA, not the Yavapai County Board of Supervisors. And, yes, Springer is the representative from Yavapai County to the CSA. But, the only thing that the email from Sullivan said was, "...Coconino, Yavapai and Navajo were the most interested..." What in the heck does that mean?

We asked Sullivan about that, and more. In our email to Sullivan, dated Sunday, July 20, Prescott eNews wrote the following:

"What do you mean exactly by "Coconino, Yavapai and Navajo were the most interested in the proposal?" How did they show interest? Was it their proposal to begin with? Did they push it, endorse it, or what? Was there some specific comment that was made that indicated interest?

Did any representative from Yavapai County work on the proposal? If so, who?

Did any representative from Yavapai County indicate that they were going to raise the local sales tax immediately if the proposal were approved by legislature? If so, who?"

This morning, Prescott eNews received an email in reply from Sullivan. Sullivan wrote, "Simply put, I was wrong in how I characterized Yavapai County's position in my email to Senator O’halleran. It is the case that CSA sought legislative authorization for an additional county option sales tax though the issue never received a vote. Representatives from Coconino and Navajo counties were active in educating legislators as to the importance of permitting additional local discretion regarding revenue collection. However, the Yavapai County Board did not take a position on the issue and no Yavapai supervisor advocated for this authority. My mischaracterization stemmed from a loose recollection of a conversation with county staff, and I regret that I failed to verify this before I sent the email.

After I sent the email to Sen. O’halleran, I contacted Julie Ayers, manager at Yavapai County. She was clear with me that the Board and its members had not taken a position on the issue. Unfortunately, I did not follow up with the Senator to correct myself...

We worked with some legislators to have the issue introduced, but it did not receive a vote in the legislature. Coconino and Navajo counties assisted in educating legislators about the importance of having local flexibility."

But, Are You Sure?

Just to make sure that Yavapai County wasn't pushing this legislation, Prescott eNews checked with Representatives Lucy Mason and Andy Tobin. Neither Tobin or Mason were approached by any of the members of the Yavapai County Board of Supervisors requesting support on a sales tax increase for the county.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (5)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Lockwood/Springer/Season debate in Williamson Valley
written by Karyl, July 25, 2008

this paper continues to bully any candidate who points out outpoints with the county supervisors.

I was at the debate last night and it was evident people want a change. This is our county and our country and I know for a fact that Ms Springer in her Supervisor meetings dismisses comments made by the Citizens. There are no Citizens on any board in this county. It is as though she is the Queen and we are her subjects. Well not on my watch. I have not gotten to where I am by being a subject to anyone. We all have a voice and we need to use it.

Mr. Season and Ms Lockwood did a great job last night and hopefully some "Rose Colored glasses" came off.

What is truly sad in this 21 century that Ms Springer has never asked the citizens what they need or want. She spoke about how beautiful it is out here and how we are bordered by state land and that development would be contained and on and on. She insists basing her facts with figures that quite frankly I and others have never seen.

It is true that all people are not going to agree with Officials all of the time but I want my say in how my community is going to expand.

In my opinion Mr. Seaman pointed out facts that I agree people are truly missing. The only way to change anything is to vote out those representing what you don't stand for.

• 
• -1
• 
• 

...
written by Sam Screwtape, July 26, 2008

The paper isn't 'bullying' anybody. They are just pointing out misconceptions, and clarifying the situation. Lockwood said that Springer supported an increase in the sales tax cap, based on said O'halleran email. Springer said she didn't. O'Halleran was asked and said that the email was vague, and that in fact Springer hadn't supported such a thing. Nobody put down. Just a messy situation clarified.
A better question though: What exactly is the sales tax cap?

• 
• +2
• 
• 

...
written by TJA, July 26, 2008

I agree...this paper isn't bullying anyone. I can always trust this paper for getting the facts and following up on difficult issues. Also, just a point of clarification, the candidate who is running as an independent is "Seaman" (not Season). There is no question in my mind of the three candidates who has the highest level of integrity--it's Ms. Springer. Even though I don't agree with her (or anyone) on all issues, I trust her and know that she will take the hits when it means that she must make a choice that is fiscally responsible and BEST for the entire county...not just a few.

• 
• +1
• 
• 

...
written by Greg, July 26, 2008

Very interesting story. Unfortunately Ms. Lockwood has been spreading this slander around the county as she campaigns...so you suppose there will be a public apology to Ms. Springer comparable to the public slander Lockwood has already poured out on the county voters? To my mind, it's just another example of Lockwood's being unfit to serve in a public position. I attended the candidate forum at the Williamson Valley fire station. It was quite a lions' den. Many vocal and impolite members of the public in attendance. Also interested to see bumper stickers for Obama and Lockwood displayed together. The candidates all comported themselves well except for Lockwood's slanders. Ms. Springer performed admirably under extreme duress since most questions/allegations/insults were addressed to her. She was poised, objective and considerate of those with obviously differing views. If the citizens in Yavapai County want a serious, effective and capable supervisor to help us navigate into the future, they'll vote for Springer. If they want entertainment and something to make jokes about over coffee, they'll vote for Lockwood...Mr. Seaman is now complaining that his property is worth less because the County has instituted a road maintenance impact fee on new construction. Very laughable. If I recall correctly, Seaman and his cohorts were strongly in favor of impact fees to discourage development when the Prop 400 debate was underway. Does he think impact fees should be imposed only on others? Seaman seems to be using his campaign to advocate shifting all the impact fees to the county property owners other than himself (note to Seaman, impact fees do discourage development, so you can feel good about your situation).

• 
• +1
• 
• 

...
written by Elizabeth, July 29, 2008

Great and fair coverage offered by PrescottENews. You have thoroughly researched all the allegations and presented them for all to see. Lockwood seems intent on bad mouthing everyone she can regardless of the truth....her frivolous lawsuit was a gross waste of taxpayer dollars causing the county to expend many, many hours of overtime. It's too bad that she didn't have to repay the taxpayers expense. Her saga of seek and destroy continues. Not a good choice for public office.

• 
• +0
• 
•