Georgene Lockwood, during a recent debate.

You've probably heard the saying, "Don't confuse me with facts, I've already made up my mind." Well, that certainly seems to fit this situation.

So, let's make it easy for you: the fact is that Yavapai County Supervisor Carol Springer did NOT push for the county authority to increase the sales tax by half a cent without a vote by the constituents.

That's the truth. Honest. As a matter of fact, you can stop reading this story right now, and you'll be fine.

But, for an understanding of the sequence and the background documentation, you'll have to continue on.

The Lockwood Evidence

If you remember where we left off in the last episode called, The Questions Georgene Lockwood Wouldn't Answer, Gil Shaw, acting as attorney for Georgene Lockwood, promised more 'evidence' in the question of whether or not Springer supported a 1/2 cent sales tax, stating, "I believe it will change your perspective on this entire debate. It will contradict most everything you have been told."

So, we waited and waited to hear the evidence. All last week - and we got nothing.

But, late Monday afternoon, the Lockwood campaign has finally released the 'evidence'. I have to put 'evidence' in quotes, because the 'evidence' produced by the Lockwood campaign never once mentions Supervisor Springer. You can find the press release on Lockwood's website (it's on the left, under Campaign Literature for some reason). Look for the one released on August 4, 2008, at 4:21 pm. It's two pages long, and here are some of the highlights:

• Senator O'Halleran received an email from Julie Ayers, dated June 27, 2008, supporting the sales tax iniative. Ayers is the Yavapai County Administrator.
• The County Supervisor's Association listed this taxing authority as one of their priorities.
• The press release asked several questions, one of which read, "Did Julie Ayers contact the CSA on her own in support of the bill, speaking for Yavapai County, or did one, two or all three of the supervisors direct her to do so? If the supervisors directed her to, which ones? If no one directed Ms. Ayers to support the bill, who is minding the store?"

As mentioned, these are just the highlights, be sure to check the press release out yourself.

For the record, the first two statements are true. The questions are what we want to address.

When O'Halleran was asked last week if anyone from the Yavapai County Supervisor's Board requested that he support the 1/2 cent sales tax authority, he replied, "The County Administrator did; she doesn't do that on her own. She sent me an email saying that 'it was important for this county to have." But, when pressed, he admitted that no supervisor had solicited his support in this issue.

In her press release, Lockwood asks a lot of questions, but provides no answers. It's curious that the Lockwood camp didn't contact Ayers directly and ask her the questions, because if they had, they might have understood the situation better.

On Monday, Prescott eNews took the time to investigate the email, asking Ayers if it was genuine, and what the circumstances were surrounding it.

Ayers replied promptly and professionally, sending this email to Prescott eNews on Monday afternoon:

County Administrator Ayers Answers the Questions

Good afternoon!

I have been the County Administrator since May 2007 and during my tenure I can say that the Yavapai County Board of Supervisors has never discussed or taken a position on additional sales tax capacity.

I am aware that the County Supervisors Association (CSA) had this item as a priority for the last legislative session and as a staff member I followed the bills for which CSA was advocating. The county sales tax item did not receive any traction until such time the state budget proposals began to surface which contained significant impacts to the counties. The final push by CSA on the county sales tax item was in response to the state budget and on June 27th (final day of the session) I received a call from Craig Sullivan of CSA asking for counties to send an email or make a phone call to Tom O'Halleran on this matter.

Based on the fact that the Yavapai County Board of Supervisors is a member of CSA but had not taken a position on the matter, and based on the urgency of the request, I sent the following email to Tom O'Halleran stating support for CSA:

Good morning –

I am writing on behalf of Yavapai County regarding bill 2731 which would authorize a county, with a unanimous vote of the elected supervisors, to levy a sales tax up to 1 cent. This is an important local issue and we support the County Supervisor’s Association position and the bill as written.

We would appreciate your support. If you have any questions, please give me a call at (928) 442-5980.

Julie Ayers
County Administrator
Yavapai County

Showing that I was conscious of over-stepping my bounds, I sent the following email to the 3 members of the Board of Supervisors later that day:

*County Manager Meeting/LPC (phone). Discussed the state budget and implications on the counties. HURF and billed HURF contribution = $1,247,344. ALTCS refund = $656,277 (the state has taken 2 years worth of our refunds, however we only budget approximately $200,000 in miscellaneous revenue for this item each year). DPS Lab = $209,534. Photo radar was also included in the budget and will impact our Justice Court caseload. As a compromise, we have been given a number of ways to pay for these items, which I would like to discuss at a special board meeting. The authority to pass a ½ cent sales tax was still on the table and was within 3 votes of today. CSA asked us to contact Tom O’Halleran to encourage him to support the matter. Not wanting to overstep my boundaries, I sent a simple email supporting CSA’s position.

I sent the email to Tom O’Halleran without direction or consultation of any member of the Board of Supervisors.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Julie Ayers
County Administrator
Yavapai County Government

A Chat With Craig Sullivan

Craig Sullivan, the Executive Director of the County Supervisor's Association is a very busy person. It took a while, but we caught up with him last week to ask about his email to Senator O'Halleran, and the ensuing debate it spawned. And, of course, one of the first things we asked was if he had any idea of how important his email had become in the debate between Springer and Lockwood.

"You know, I have to confess, after I sent you some information," Sullivan said, "I was looking at your website, (which I thought was nice,) and I came across a transcript, and I got a sense of what may be occurring. But, I didn't know how that was manifesting itself after the debate the two candidates had."

We asked if Carol Springer had pushed this issue in anyway that he could think of. Or if he had been threatened, intimidated or forced to retract his original email to O'Halleran.

"No," Sullivan said with emphasis. "Absolutely not. And, I think that when Mr. O'Halleran, following the session, when Mr. O'Halleran's office called me, and asked me for information relating to the sales tax, I just at that moment shot him an email and was trying to be real responsive to him, he's been great to work with. And, when you asked me questions about it, I became concerned, because I had followed up with County Management, subsequent to that email to check and make sure I was accurate, and found out I wasn't. And, so, I was just concerned because I put something out there that was not accurate, and was not able to correct it before it became an issue."

"And, I'm so grateful you're working on that," Sullivan said. "I'm definitely troubled by what my misstatement has caused."

So, how is Springer to work with in the CSA, anyway? "I think that she's been a valuable asset to the dialog among all the state supervisors, because she brings significant experience to the conversation and is able to provide a perspective to the discussion. And I think that's been valuable."

"I made a mistake in the email that I sent," Sullivan said, "And I really regret that it's taken off like this and taken away from the real public discussion that ought to take place about issues in Yavapai County."

"If anything, I was embarrassed by being so sloppy by what I sent to Mr. O'Halleran," Sullivan reaffirmed. "At the end, when we made an effort to try to get this amendment put on a bill, the counties that were down here were Coconino and Navajo. Those were the ones down here working directly - Carol Springer was not involved in that effort."

"I'm glad you're working on this, though," Sullivan said once more. "Just to make sure that the information out there is right. I think it does a good service."

Meet Matt Ryan, Coconino County Supervisor

Supervisor Matt Ryan represents District 3 in Coconino County. At the time, he was also the Coconino representative to the County Supervisor's Association. When contacted by Prescott eNews for information, Ryan was quite helpful in explaining the sequence of events. Here's Ryan's account:

"As far as her [Supervisor Carol Springer's] position, I'm not sure that she ever took an official position on it," Ryan explained. "In terms of the County Supervisor's Association, what we had done, is we had a retreat, and every year we do a retreat to take a look at our legislative items. And last year, the small counties - we had three different caucuses in the County Supervisor's Association, there are the small counties, medium counties and large counties." (You can download the 2008 CSA Legislative Proposals here.)

"Large are Maricopa and Pima, as you would expect," Ryan explained. 'Medium would be Coconino, Yavapai, Mojave, Cochise, Yuma, Pinal. So we have six counties with us, and then there's small counties. The small counties brought it as a proposal for the County Supervisor's Association to consider. And with the discussions associated with it, the more and more we get pinched by the state and are being asked to do more functions for the state, we're getting to the point that the cost of providing services are reaching our cap. And is there another financial mechanism that we can consider?"

Ryan continued, "And they [the small counties] made a recommendation that a half cent sales tax be proposed. And so that was run by the small counties, and during the retreat, the supervisors that were present - I think we had something like 30 or 36 supervisors present - we would see if it would get the litmus test, if the majority of the people would be for it, and if so, where would we put it on our agenda? And so, putting it to the test of the full group, there was pretty strong support that we need to look at other ways of providing for our services if we run out of revenue, and this one made sense."

"So, we had a group vote cast, but we didn't have an individual vote..." Ryan said. "So, it moved to our agenda as an item, and we had it there, and initially because it's a tough year, our strategy was, 'Well, it's a tough year, but...' We weren't sure whether we should bring it up or not, we did have it as part of our agenda, we did bring it around and discuss it, as part of our packet. However, we didn't seek a sponsor, becuase it was just, everybody was kind of struggling as to which piece to pursue, and we had other items that we thought were more important and would gain resonance with the legislature."

"However, when the state started coming after our additional revenues, we brought it up again," Ryan stated. "We brought it up to the governor, and Bill Konopnicki was one of the legislators that we were asking to bring this as a piece of discussion. That if we are going to have the state keep going and grabbing revenue or money from our budgets, it is going to impact our services, we need to have that option, can you present it? So, we brought it back and had it resonate again in the discussions."

"In the end, they did not move to propose it," Ryan said. "It really came down to the Senate was not going to include it in part of their package, the House was considering the possibility of doing it - whether it would have made it all the way through the House budget, by then the Senate and the Governor had really reached their budget decisions, and so we saw it wasn't going anywhere."

Ryan concluded, "So, that's the dynamic, that we went through in our organization. Where Yavapai County was, we didn't do a poll per supervisor; I do know that right now, you're having the jail tax as a proposal, and right now, I've heard from the supervisors over there, that from a budget standpoint, the quarter-cent sales tax for consideration of a jail district is a most important priority. And they're concerned about any of the sales taxes, if they would be to compete with that jail sales tax."

It's a Lot of Information

Over the last couple of weeks, we've provided a lot of information on this story. And it all points to the fact that Carol Springer did not promote or push this legislation in behalf of Yavapai County. To imply otherwise, is just deceptive.

Of course, we didn't come to that conclusion immediately. We researched, we made phone calls, we actually investigated the claims made by both sides. Something you might expect a competent attorney to do before authorizing press releases.

But, it doesn't matter what the facts are, Georgene Lockwood won't let this one go. She insists on using it as a campaign issue, despite the evidence and testimonies of people closely associated to the events. And she continues to look for something to back up her theory, as demonstrated by her request for 4 years worth of documents relating to the Yavapai County relationship with the CSA.

Is it possible that she doesn't have any thing else to talk about?

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (10)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Is Lockwood Running for Court Jester or Scandal Monger
written by Greg, August 05, 2008

Good grief. Yavapai County does not deserve Ms. Lockwood's goofy character flaws serving in the role of Supervisor. It is becomming more and more clear why she has written several "Idiot's Guides" and why her quip about writing an "Idiot's Guide to Running for Public Office" is not just a joke - it's a confession. We don't need someone providing direction to the future of Yavapai County who is so distracted by fabricated intrigues. There are real issues confronting us and Ms. Springer is the rational adult we deserve and need in the role of County Supervisor.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

Now You Know
written by Williamson Valley Resident, August 05, 2008

Now all Yavapai County residents can see what we have been dealing with in WV for years. The methods Lockwood has used to misrepresent her opponent’s involvement in the sales tax increase is the same methods she has used in the WV Concerned Citizens, Friends of WV and WV Corridor Plan group to mislead residents in a number of issues. Misdirection, innuendoes, insinuations, that’s all she ever has. Unfortunately a few have fallen for it, fortunately many see through it. Check her record. She has never been successful at any of her projects. “People before Politics?" with Lockwood it’s always politics especially if a lawsuit is involved.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +1

Grasping At Straws For Experience
written by Susan, August 05, 2008

It appears that Ms. Lockwood's inexperience is now truly presenting itself. In a time of nation-wide financial economic hardship for both our County and constituents, do we really even want to consider someone who is unable to even piece together, and put into proper perspective, an elementary course of events let alone have the adequate ability and experience to piece together a budget to its fullest capability of services for Yavapai County residents. Thank God Carol Springer does have that sort of ability and experience to back her up. We are truly blessed that someone with her background even wants to care enough to represent us in District 1. Thanks for printing this story. It was written with excellence and due diligence.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +4

Good story research!
written by Jerry S., August 06, 2008

Very excellent reporting. To me it pretty much verifies what I thought when Lockwood challenged Carol's signatures: her campaign is leaking oil and she'll do pretty much anything in desperation to stop it. What confuses me is why Gil Shaw is involved in this to such an extent. I think the race is over.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +4

Shaded writing
written by Dave H, August 06, 2008

IF the writer was impartial, which she appears to be firmly aborad the Springer Express, the writer could could conclude that since her election as a County Supervisor, Carol Springer's job title is more like Dictator.

Willaimson Valley residents did not mind a road widening. They do abhor a freeway through their quiet valley to speed buyers to Steve Pierce's La Vegas Ranch to buy property.

I personally heard a woman in Skull Valley complain to Springer that Springer had promised them a paved side road. No improvements have been made to that road. Springers' gofer head of public works told the woman,"We have had a reduction in tax revenues, and projects had to be set back--I guess your road was one of those projects". BUT Springer is FULL SPEED AHEAD to making W V Rd into A freeway. Not cuts in funds there!

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: -1

Say What????
written by Jane Frazier, August 06, 2008

Let me see if I understand this – Julie Ayers, the County Administrator, on her own initiative, knowing that the Board “had not taken a position on the matter”, sends an e-mail to Tom O’Halleran saying that the Yavapai County BOS supports the CSA’s position on 2731. She states: “I was conscious of over-stepping my bounds” so she sends a heads-up e-mail to the Supervisors that says “Not wanting to overstep my boundaries, I sent a simple email supporting CSA’s position.” First, it’s not clear - did she or did she not overstep her boundaries? Sounds like some back-pedaling to me.

But even more amazing is the fact that she presumably made a stand on behalf of the Board that allegedly did not represent the position of the Board at all. If that is true, where is the retraction that SOMEONE on the Board would have fired off immediately if indeed they, either individually or collectively, did not support 2731? As an upper level state government employee for almost 3 decades myself, I am certain that the first response to the “head-up” e-mail would have been an immediate follow-up e-mail to either the CSA or Senator O’Halleran to correct Ms. Ayers misrepresentation of the position of the Board AND an admonition issued to Ms. Ayers to advise her of the errors of her ways. One can only conclude from the lack of reaction, that the Board members agreed with the message and felt no need to retract or clarify.

Then, to top it off, Craig Sullivan, the very busy executive director of the CSA, sends off an admittedly thoughtless, sloppy, and inaccurate message to Sen. O’Halleran. Did he perhaps take Ms. Ayers’ e-mail at “face value”, and not follow-up with County Management because Ms. Ayers’ e-mail was not inconsistent with CSA “group” consensus to push for the legislation, discussions Ms. Springer must certainly have been present at, or at least aware of, and expressed her own stand at some point?

The County Administrator is running amok, overstepping her bounds, and misrepresenting the Board’s position on issues? The Executive Director of CSA issuing thoughtless and inaccurate statements? Carol Springer seemingly unaware of an important tax issue, or, if aware, not willing to take a public stand on it at some point? Sounds like some changes need to be made in County leadership. I think Ms. Lockwood’s questions absolutely need to be answered.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

Reporting??
written by Virginia Meyers, August 06, 2008

Don't think I would call this "reporting". Why should Springer spend money on advertising when she gets it for free right here? The writer's loyalties are so obvious, you wonder if she might be getting some kick-back from Springer for the slanted and one-sided presentation of the "facts" - but just the facts she wants to present. Due diligence? Don't think so. Cheap shots? Plenty of them. Self aggrandizing statements on her own stellar coverage of this "non-issue"? You betcha! Everyone quoted seems to make a point of complimenting the writer on the public service she is doing by repeatedly writing about this. A real reporter would be embarrassed to include such ego feeding statements.

Apparently Sullivan does not think increasing taxes in Yavapai County is a "real issue". If not, what is?

And someone asks, why on earth would an attorney like Gil Shaw want to be involved in an effort that involves no profit, no glory, and a lot of undeserved criticism? Could it be because he and the other people involved in Lockwood's campaign and her supporters all share a major quality that is uncommon to most people in politics: they are committed to doing the right thing?

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: -2

...
written by Deborah R., August 07, 2008

If the County Supervisors are not going to take responsibility for the actions of the employees then why do we need the County Supes. Let the lunatics run the asylum.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

Citizens Deserve a Voice in County Government
written by Neil C, August 09, 2008

Everyone should understand that this proposed sales tax increase, to be enacted without public input and arranged behind our backs, is just another example of government run by the “good old boys and girls” for their own benefit and without our input. We have a real choice in this election between Lockwood, a candidate who will bring our voices into County government, and Springer whose “done deal” style ignores our voices and desires

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

Questionable campaign tactics
written by Jane, August 16, 2008

I just received a postcard from Lockwood stating, “Carol Springer endorsed a one cent sales tax increase to pay for billions in highways funds. WITH NO GUARENTEE Yavapai County will get its fair share.” So I went back and read your article on this topic which you backed up with documentation that proves that what the postcard states is absolutely not true. I can not understand why anyone would vote for a person who uses misrepresents her opponent’s position.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0