MOLLY WIMPS OUT: Tucson City Councilwoman Molly McKasson blew it bigtime recently when it came down to firing City Manager Mike "The Spike" Brown, a bully nobody likes. Molly voted to keep him on, for no discernible reason other than she's a nice person who dislikes unpleasantness. Brown has been doing his best to suck up to business and development interests ever since he and his carpetbag hit town a couple of years ago. The recent flap over development on the west side is only the tip of this burg he's icing, as was his decision to employ a TPD helicopter to squire mega-bucks developer Don Diamond over the Don's vast Rocking K Ranch holdings as the two men discussed how best to extend city infrastructure to the vast development at taxpayer expense. In addition, Brown's ignored the wishes of the council, not to mention their actual votes. In one instance, he was specifically ordered, by a majority vote, not to negotiate a deal with a local water company; but council members were chagrined to discover he'd gone ahead and done it any way. Arrogance seems to be Brown's trademark. Lately he's been pushing the idea of forming teams of city bureaucrats to listen to citizen complaints and supposedly find ways of alleviating citizen problems. Excuse us, but that's why we elect people to the city council in the first place. It's time Tucson dumped Brown and the whole "strong-city manager" form of government. City bureaucrats, who are wildly overpaid as it is, need to be slapped down. This is supposed to be a democracy, not a technocracy, and the People rule. And politicians--even strong ones--are a necessary evil if we hope to maintain control of local government. (At least we can vote the bastards out when they screw up--try doing that with a mid-level bureaucrat). IS THIS THE BEST YOU CAN DO? We recently received a moderately-sized pile of B.S. in the form of a copy of a lawsuit filed by defense attorney Bill Risner against Pima County Attorney candidates David White, a Republican, and Barbara LaWall, a Democrat, both veteran prosecutors. Risner's a fine attorney and a wonderful man, and we can't kiss his butt enough, but he's gone over to the dark side in his support of Rick Gonzales for county attorney. We'd much rather see an experienced prosecutor in the post being vacated by 500-pound gorilla Steve Neely (hey, not all liberal yahoos are soft on crime), and Gonzales just doesn't fit the bill. But that hasn't prevented Risner from filing his suit, which alleges the names White and LaWall have chosen for their election committees are improper because they don't include the candidates' names, but instead sport adjectives indicating they'd prosecute bad guys with utmost diligence: "The Committee For Maximum Punishment," or some such theatrical bullshit. Bill, this is a picayune and pointless way to decide who'll be our next prosecutor. But we're sure glad to see you lawyers pecking each other to death, rather than the rest of us normal folk. HELL, GET TOUGH ON PROSECUTORS, TOO: In a recent editorial, The Arizona Daily Star pontificated it would be a bad idea to hire a special prosecutor to investigate alleged wrongdoing in the state Attorney General's Office headed by Grant Woods, a plan favored by state Senate President John Greene, who hates Woods. The Star argues the bad blood between the two Republican pols is just a bunch of pointless politics; Woods has already been investigated by Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley; and besides, taking this action in Wood's case would mean any Arizona official could then be targeted for investigation by a special prosecutor--and that would be an unnecessary taxpayer expense. Excuse us, but as taxpayers and citizens, we'd love to see our state officials occasionally answer to a special prosecutor. It would tend to keep the bastards honest, and the expense be damned. Also, Woods is precisely the type of public official who could benefit from a pants-down spanking by a prosecutorial Church Lady. His record as Arizona's top lawman is seedy at best, and inexcusable at worst. In short, we don't trust him, or the organization now under his control, which looks more like the law office of some third-rate hustler than a state agency that's supposed to be above reproach. All you have to do is peruse the Phoenix newspapers for examples: • Several years ago, then-First Assistant Attorney General Robert Carey ordered an investigation of then-Liquor Department Director Mark Mazzie at the same time that Carey owned a substantial interest in liquor establishments that had been fined for violations by Mazzie's department. • In late 1993, Woods was investigated by the U.S. Attorney's Office for alleged misuse of funds because he withheld 2 percent of the Criminal Justice Enhancement Funds from county attorneys as an administrative fee, without statutory authority to do so. • Steve Tseffos, Woods' obnoxious PR flack, resigned in 1994 amid allegations of wrongdoing and conflict of interest. Seems Tseffos was buddies with a judge named Steven Mirretti, who was under criminal investigation by the AG's office. After he resigned, Tseffos ran Woods' petition drive for attorney general, and Phoenix papers were prompted to wonder why Woods held up Mirretti's sentencing for more than 16 months, while refusing to explain the delay. • Perhaps the most egregious case of all occurred in 1994, when the Phoenix Gazette reported the AG's office had been investigating allegations of bribery and corruption in the construction department at Samaritan Health Systems. During the investigation, Samaritan awarded a multi-million-dollar contract to a company owned by Woods' father, Joe--a company in which Grant Woods served as a paid board member. While fired Samaritan auditors alleged the construction contract was awarded to Joe Woods in an effort to influence the AG's criminal investigation, Grant Woods denied there was a conflict and went ahead with the probe, which was later closed on grounds of insufficient evidence. CLARIFICATION: In last week's report on the Board of Supervisors' campaign contribution, we reported that District 3 Supe Ed Moore had turned in two separate finance reports, one as a Republican and one as an independent. Turns out the Republican and independent labels were attached by the Division of Elections staff and not Moore's campaign. The report showing Moore had collected in excess of $70,000 is a left-over fund from previous campaigns. Moore is contesting a debt to political strategist Rod Cramer on that account, so he hasn't been able to close it out. However, he is not currently collecting contributions for that account, according to his staff. The other report, which showed Moore had collected only $2,810, is a new campaign finance account which Moore will be using for the 1996 campaign.

		© 1995-97 Tucson Weekly . Info Booth