Republican Patricia Noland has served as Pima County’s Clerk of the Superior Court for more than 11 years, and in every election since her first, she’s been able to count on one constant: the same challenger, Democrat Margaret DiFrank.
“I call her the Joe Sweeney of the Clerk of the Court (race),” Noland says, referring to the perennial crank candidate in Congressional District 7. “I do think of her as a disgruntled former employee. This is her one shot to go against me.”
DiFrank worked for Noland after Noland’s first election, and was fired after 10 months.
DiFrank says she expects Noland to characterize her as an angry ex-employee, but that she runs every election season because she feels her experience—she runs an investigations firm that often works on criminal legal cases, and holds a master’s degree in public service management—makes her qualified.
“This is the only office I’m interested in. It’s exactly what I’m all about. I was terminated (by Noland), but if anything, I’m a disgruntled taxpayer,” DiFrank says.
While she worked under Noland, DiFrank says, she disagreed with what she considered to be unqualified hires. DiFrank says one current staff member helped Noland with campaigns when the clerk served as a state legislator, and another is a fellow Republican and former state legislator voted out of office in 2006. Those employees, according to DiFrank, are not qualified—and both make more than $90,000.
Noland’s salary, which is set by the Board of Supervisors, is $76,600.
DiFrank thinks there’s another reason for concern: On Noland’s Facebook page, under Noland’s picture, it reads: “This is an election year—yes Clerk of the Superior Court is an elected position!! I run every four years. Looking forward to retirement sometime in the next four years. I re-married three years ago. We travel to Mexico as often as possible.”
DiFrank says she thinks Noland’s plan is to win one more term and then retire in order to turn the office over to one of her employees—perhaps Toni Hellon, the former Republican state legislator on staff.
“Which is politics as usual, I know, but not the voters’ choice,” DiFrank says.
Regarding another issue, DiFrank refers to a letter that attorney Brick Storts sent to Noland on Aug. 9, 2007, regarding clerk staffing issues while he was representing Gerardo Zepeda, who was charged with first-degree murder and kidnapping. Storts complained that there were seven different clerks assigned to the trial, which led to mistakes that could have been avoided if only one clerk had been assigned.
“I have tried numerous cases within the court system, where a trial has lasted one or more weeks; you have only one assigned clerk involved in those trials,” which provided continuity and prevented mistakes, Storts wrote to Noland.
DiFrank says many people don’t understand that court recorders work for the judicial side of the court—recording every word of court happenings—while clerks from Noland’s office work for the county and are responsible for taking minutes and keeping a record of what’s happening in courtrooms.
“What (Storts) is talking about here is a lack of professional management,” DiFrank says.
DiFrank also complains that too much money is going to administrative salaries; that the office suffers from high turnover due to low morale; and that Noland is not putting all criminal and civil court records online as required by Arizona law.
Currently, records are available at the Pima County Courthouse, where four computers are used for searches, and copies cost 50 cents per page.
“She’s just not willing to make public access fully available,” DiFrank says.
Regarding DiFrank’s criticism about public records, Noland says that the Arizona Supreme Court has asked all counties to have all records go through the same portal for online access.
“They don’t have it ready yet. (DiFrank would) be in the same place,” Noland says. “… She wants it to seem as if I am against transparency, but that’s just not my intention.”
Instead, Noland says she has worked to make records more accessible by creating the system that allows the public to access records on the second floor of the courthouse.
Noland also says that’s it’s not true that she plans to retire—although she doesn’t deny the wording on her Facebook page. “One of the reasons I want to run this term is to be there to help get us through this hard economic time. I’m familiar with the office (and) the budget, and I have a strong relationship with the county manager.”
The concerns brought up in Storts’ letter from three years ago are no longer an issue, Noland says. “We took the information from the letter very seriously, responded to it and fixed the problem. We were down (clerks) at that time; several had retired, and we hadn’t been able to fill the positions. … I’m not perfect, and I don’t expect all my people to be perfect, but we work to correct our mistakes.”
Noland adds that DiFrank’s company, Info-Tracts, does work for Storts’ office, and she wonders how DiFrank would separate herself from the business, which she owns with her husband, Terry Frederick. The business works closely with area attorneys and court cases throughout the state—and DiFrank would have access to records that could potentially benefit her business.
DiFrank says she recognizes the potential conflict, but has plans to “pass the baton” to a different business partner if she is elected.
Noland says that despite DiFrank’s accusations, she feels her office is well-run.
“She can insinuate everything she wants. My people are paid less than those (on the judicial side) in Superior Court who are doing the same jobs. … They are trustworthy, do the job and are loyal to the office,” Noland says.
This article appears in Sep 23-29, 2010.
Notice how Noland doesn’t respond to direct criticism. Everyone downtown knows how hard it is to get records from the courthouse, how mismanaged and disorganized her office is and how protected she is from political (even bipartisan) allies.
If Noland’s claim that the online records system “isn’t ready,” then how can other counties do it? I suppose it’s just a coincidence.
Anyone who has done records searches on the second floor knows how cumbersome it is. Not to mention that there are far too few computers for such high demand.
It seems to me a former employee would be in the perfect position to see the flaws in the system. Or should we just wait until Noland retires, appoints her successor and then continue in this grand old tradition of political inheritance?
Noland’s smarmy comment about Joe Sweeney speaks volumes. What class!
Unfortunately, too few people take notice of the clerk’s race and too few know how much it could improve with new leadership.
I find your article to be slanted toward Nolan. This is not fair reporting. After several years in this position, Nolan has become complacent, at best. By her own words, she is simply putting in her time until she retires. She does not have the best interests of the Clerk’s office at heart. The turnover rate of her personnel is evidence of her poor management skills. For a long time anyone can get records from the Justice Court online. But Superior Court records are not accessible unless you travel downtown and go to the second floor! Every time she comes up for reelection, Nolan promises to get this done. Her intention must be to delay it until she is retired, and then her successor can deal with it! DiFrank has plans to improve the operation of the Clerk’s office. You should print an article slanted toward her ideas so that the public can make a fair comparison between business as usual and exciting new changes.
Apparently the one constant in every election since Noland’s first is Noland’s arrogance and double talk. Ms. Noland does not give the taxpayers enough credit for seeing through the misstatements she makes.
“Regarding DiFrank’s criticism about public records, Noland says that the Arizona Supreme Court has asked all counties to have all records go through the same portal for online access.”
Noland opted out of the “same portal” in 2003/4 which was for viewing which was voluntary. How long is everyone going to tolerate her double talk? If you go to this portal, all the counties have their records accessible, including criminal files. Currently, criminal files are not accessible in Pima County Superior Court unless you go down to the courthouse. Why is it even the smaller counties have these records available and Pima County does not – – doesn’t sound like she wants these records readily available to the public.
“The concerns brought up in Storts’ letter from three years ago are no longer an issue, Noland says. “We took the information from the letter very seriously, responded to it and fixed the problem. We were down (clerks) at that time; several had retired, and we hadn’t been able to fill the positions. … I’m not perfect, and I don’t expect all my people to be perfect, but we work to correct our mistakes.”
How exactly did she correct her mistakes? The budgets filed with the Board of Supervisors show a steady decline in FTEs: 06/07 – 230.1; 07/8 – 226.1; 08/09 – 221.5; 09/10 – 217.5 and 10/11 – 212.6 Is she training, hiring qualified clerks – no. By the way, this information is available on-line.
Why shouldn’t Noland have an opponent to run against—it’s an elected office, not a throne.
DiFrank can separate herself from the business, but the business is entitled to the public records without having to pay the .50 a page. What records is Noland talking about? Again, she forgets, the records are public – not hers.
JJames – she corrected her mistakes by harassing, demoting and cutting the salary of one of the clerks involved in half. No backup system was put in place to prevent this happening again. There is no consistent schedule for training new clerks. It is an as needed based system of training.
The question to be asked is how much this mistake cost the taxpayers when the matter was taken to the Court of Appeals and then to the Arizona Supreme Court.
Noland’s claim that her “people are paid less than those (on the judicial side) in Superior Court who are doing the same jobs” is just another example of an incumbent politician talking out of both sides of her mouth. There is no job on the judicial side that is comparable to what her Associate Clerks are doing. Although it is not clear why Noland needs 3 Associate clerks with combined salaries of more than $371,000.00 per year.
If Noland is so concerned about “being there to help get us through this hard economic time” maybe she should be looking at cutting back of the number of Associate Clerk’s it takes to help Noland do her job. $371,000.00 would go a long way toward hiring more clerks to cover courtrooms and train them properly.
Does it matter why DiFrank is running? That isn’t an issue that interests the taxpayers. It is a smokescreen to divert attetnion away from the facts.
Ms. Noland plans to retire in the next four years. This was written by Noland in her facebook page. Now that it has been brought to the attention of the voters, she is saying it’s not true. What do we beleive; what she wrote or what she says?
Ms. Noland has slid through each election because the voters are not aware of the mismanagement of the Clerk’s Office because it is a relatively small race. People think because they haven’t heard anything bad about Ms. Noland that she must be doing a good job and her buddies at the Citizen and Star make sure the voters are kept in the dark.
Ms. Noland promised in her 1998 run for Clerk of Court (See Citizen endorsement) to make records available on-line. How much longer do we wait for this promise to be kept by a career politician?
Patty Nolan seems to feel she is already a shoo-in for this upcoming election. Although her title “Clerk of the Superior Court” sounds like a clerical job, voters should understand the importance of the office. Margret DeFrank certainly seems to possess the education, experience and necesssary skills for the position. What qualifies Patty Nolan other than she has been successful in staying in the job each election year? The job title is confusing and it is easier for voters to assume the incumbent should stay in office. The results might have been different if Ms. Nolan were held to judicial performance standards – on a merit and retention system. After reading your article and the comments made in response, I don’t see that she is effectively managing the administrative responsibilities of her office. It seems a good time for a change.
I would like to know what does Joe Sweeney has to do with this race? How has Mrs. Noland provided internet indexing of the criminal files? How has Mrs. Noland corrected the overlapping of clerks as in the Zapeda case? In this poor economy and everybody has furlought or pinched budgets how has Patty Noland handled at her office?
Ms. Noland: Which is it? What you say to the Weekly, or what you say on Facebook? Of course you’ll leave mid-term — when you turn 65 in December — why else would you post that comment on Facebook?
It must be nice for Noland to have the paper campaign for her. Whatever happened to investigative reporting as opposed to sensationalism? Have you looked at the financial taxpayer dent her political patronage job holders have made to the public trough.
I am writing in reponse to your recent slanted article regarding the upcoming election for Pima County’s Clerk of the Superior Court.
Ms. Noland has stated since 1998 that the index of criminal files should be available online yet after eleven years in office, this has yet to be implemented. Nor does she state how and when she plans to have this feature available. Why is the public able to access criminal records online for all other counties, BUT NOT PIMA? AND exactly where is her thinking to say that DiFrank would have access to records that could potentially benefit her business when the the records are open to the public anyway? This is political desperation on Noland’s part.
Patti demonstrates contempt for the public throwing us a bone—yes there are exactly (only) four computers available on the second floor of the Pima County Courthouse for the public and the legal community to do research on their cases and concerns. Have you ever waited through 4-5 elevators to get up there and another 30 minutes for an empty terminal to finally get access to records that other counties provide you online at home, if you have a computer.
Ms. Noland states that she wants to run this term “to be there to help get us through this hard economic time” but what are her plans for the budget?
My research has indicated that after eleven years of service , we are still left without enough qualified personnel in the court rooms but have an administrative staff that have over the same time period received raises ranging from 13% to 196% during her term. Cost of living raises available to other county employees during this same time totaled approximately 12%. The legislature by statute raised the salary for the Clerk 19% over the same time.
Your reporter, Mari Herreras, labels Ms. DiFrank as a “crank” candidate, however, in the 2006 election the margin was about 10,000 votes-Noland ‘s votes vs. DiFrank’s of the total voting public in PIMA COUNTY. This is hardly a crank opponent.
Ms Noland sounds like a typical politician comfortable with the way things are. After eleven years, isn’t it time for a change?
Debbie Rahn
Voter/Taxpayer
Anyone who has had the misforturne of having to conduct business with the Clerk’s Office for any reason knows it absolutely needs new and fresh ideas. It is time for a change!!!!