While the Pima County Democratic Party might not have a face, it certainly has a voice. I am writing of course of Jeff Rogers, the twice-elected Chair of the Pima County Democratic Party.
The duties of Chair are as follows:
The County Chair shall preside at all meetings; make appointments to committees; make temporary appointments to offices which have been vacated… and generally do all and everything necessary to aid in the election of Democratic candidates, and to promote successful organization and operation of the Pima County Democratic Committee.
In sum, the Chair is to administrate the Party, raise money and groom potential candidates. The Chair is also a member of the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee is allowed and authorized to express policy position on issues of local, state, and national import. Nowhere, however, in the bylaws, is the Chair authorized to decide who is, and who is not, Democrat enough for the Party’s taste. Nowhere in the bylaws do the words “Chair” and “duly appointed demagogue” appear within the same sentence.
Yet in 2011, the Pima County Democratic Party, seemingly at Mr. Rogers’ direction, but voted on by the Executive Committee, spent almost $9,000.00 to fund a campaign against Joe Flores in the Ward 1 City Council, primary election. In other words, Jeff Rogers, as the head of the Pima County Democratic Party, picked one Democrat over another during a party primary. While, as the Party was quick to point out, this action is not strictly prohibited, it is undeniably unusual.
Such an unusual move must have been firmly grounded in sound and mature disagreements over specific expressed by Mr. Flores. No. Instead, as Mr. Rogers said, “We have someone here (Mr. Flores) who we’ve never believed was a bona fide Democrat.” Mr. Rogers also cited the lack of support among his colleagues on the Party Committee as further evidence that Mr. Flores simply was not Democrat enough for him, and therefore the public at large. Perfectly appropriate for Tammany Hall.
Mr. Rogers, I ask you directly. You do not know me. May I still stand for public office? Must I renounce my Party membership to do so? Must I first approach you and seek your approval? Before I state my view on this or that, should I check with you first? As you read this, are you seated upon a dais, thoughtfully turning the proverbial ring upon your finger?
Mr. Rogers’ war upon the Party extends beyond the Ward 1 primary. His most vociferous criticism of Party members has been reserved for Miguel Cuevas and Mark Stegeman, both Democrats, both members of the TUSD school board. Stegeman’s and Cuevas’ transgressions? They had the unmitigated gall not to vote as Mr. Rogers wanted them to, at least when it came to TUSD’s embattled Mexican American Studies Program.
I also do not agree with Mr. Stegeman and Mr. Cuevas on that particular issue. I would not dream, however, of labeling the men as “Neville Chamberlains when it comes to the war on Tucson…” or state that either needs “to be tarred and feathered and rode out of town on a rail,” or aver that “they are unfit to live in a multicultural community like Tucson,” because they are “evil.” Comparing a man who voted against your wishes to history’s most benighted quisling, (outside of Quisling himself of course), would be faintly humorous, and acceptable hyperbole from the mouth of a fifteen year old. From a prominent Party leader, it is something else again.
At the very least it is juvenile. It is crass. And more than a bit disturbing. To be very, very blunt, it is not for Mr. Rogers to tell a publicly elected official how to vote, nor to label that man as evil when he votes in a way that displeases Mr. Rogers.
Like a lot of Democrats, and I am sure, most Republicans, I think, in general, it is way past time for Mr. Rogers to shut his mouth. I am weary of reading his half-baked theories on Jared Loughner’s political leanings, TUSD, or whatever else crosses the ever-shrinking space between his reason and his speech. But in his position, he has the right, and apparently the endorsement of the Party’s Executive Committee, to comment generally on policy. Well and good.
He does not have the right, however, to tell me, or anyone else, what we are allowed to think or believe as Democrats. And he does not have the right to tell his fellow Democrats that they are not welcome in my Party.
The Democratic Party does not belong to Mr. Rogers. While it is to his credit that he agreed to serve it, neither I, nor the vast majority of the rank and file asked him to define the contours of its policy, nor granted him the right to use it as his bully pulpit. And it is high past time that when he chooses to express his personal views that he identify himself as Jeff Rogers, local gadfly, and not Jeff Rogers, Chair of the Pima County Democratic Party. Because I, for one, am sick and tired of others assuming that Mr. Rogers speaks for me.
I was born and raised Republican. I chose to be a Democrat. Through the years, I participated in Young Democrats, I volunteered for candidates and once, and only once, allowed myself to be dragooned as a Precinct Committeeman. I admired, and still admire, FDR, Truman, JFK and RFK. I voted for Bill Clinton twice despite my personal distaste for his prurient habits. I have long accepted that the blessing of American privilege comes hand in glove with the responsibility of public service. And I embraced the Democratic Party because, fundamentally as a liberal leaning fellow, I believed in a few core ideals.
First, government is and should be, a force for good. Second, all people, regardless of where they came, what they believed, or what the color of their skin, deserved a fair shake from government. And most of all, I joined the Democratic Party because the Party shared those ideals. Within the Party, I am free to think what I want, and to believe what I want. And to know, to coin a phrase, that while my fellow Democrats might not like what I say, they will die for my right to say it. Above all else, we stand and fall together. We are the Great Coalition. The Big Tent. Come one. Come all.
I have friends within the Party that are pro-life. That are gun nuts. That are against gay marriage. That wish to build a wall across the Mexican Border. That dream of the day the death penalty is free from the shackles of due process. I share none of these views. But I would never question their right to belong to my party. And I would never, ever question their right to vote their conscience or to speak their mind. As far as I know, there is no litmus test to be a Democrat.
Except, apparently, in Pima County.
Rob Ferrier is a local attorney and gadfly.
This article appears in Jan 26 – Feb 1, 2012.
“administrate” is not a word. “administer” is. The rest of the piece is merely silly.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/…
Eloquent flame throwing, Rob, but I think, as a party, we must come together on the big issues. The TUSD vote was a betrayal of the party’s pluralism. I’ll buy lunch, and we can rap. And DRW needs to buy a dictionary (what a moron!). ~STP
Mr. Portell: I do not know your definition of “pluralism,” but the TUSD Board’s Jan. 10 resolution included this:
“The district shall revise its social studies core curriculum to increase its coverage of Mexican-American history and culture, including a balanced presentation of diverse viewpoints on controversial issues. The end result shall be a single common social studies core sequence through which all high school students are exposed to diverse viewpoints.” It also specified that staff bring to the board, by August, a plan for implementation.
Support and advocacy for civil rights is an unequivocal tenant of the Democratic Party. I’m proud that our chair isnt afraid to take a stand on these issues, there is no room for compromise on basic human rights for minorities/LGBT community. There have to be core values upon which you base your ideals, if not then there is no meaning to organizing as a party at all.
I love it: advocacy for civil rights is an unequivocal tenant of the Democratic Party. So what your saying is that any school with out a MAS program is in itself creating a civil rights violation. Two words Ha Ha. I like the author was raised Republican; now I think both parties are both crazy. Between Jesus and the guy who thinks it’s fair that we should give someone money for 2 years if they can’t get a job I don’t fit in with either side.
Sounds like you are also in favor of pay day loan sharks too.
There’s a rather whiny tone to this whole thing, and it’s a tone with which I’ve become familiar listening to certain critics of our Democratic Party and its leadership. It’s a tone peculiar to critics too opinionated to stay silent, but too lazy to get involved.
I’ve never seen Rob Ferrier in my life. The organization of the Pima County Democratic party is the result of people who actually get involved and participate. Jeff is our chair because people who cared enough to become Precinct Committeepeople voted him in. The decision to endorse Regina Romero against a bogus candidate (who happened to own a payday loan store), recruited by right-wing operatives wasn’t Jeff’s alone; it was made by the party’s entire executive committee. If I recall correctly, it was unanimous. Jeff has never questioned anyone’s right to “belong” to the party, nor has anyone else. Furthermore, there is no “belonging.” The Democratic Party is not a club. Who we are and what we stand for is a matter of participation and votes. Anyone can participate. And anyone capable of building consensus can change things. It’s an inherently fair system.
I don’t agree with all the things Jeff says, but I can assure you of this: there is a very solid consensus within the party that he’s doing an excellent job. We’d have voted him out if we didn’t think so. He’s very smart, he works his tail off, and his core values are right in the center of what unites us.
I’d be interested in knowing whether Ferrier is a PC, and which Legislative District he attends meetings in. Where and when he volunteers, etc. If he does all that stuff, I apologize in advance for calling this little screed what it distinctly looks like for the moment: ignorant, self-absorbed whining about something he really doesn’t understand at all.
Mr. Knipe, you’re quite right, you don’t know me. I’ve been registered as Democrat in Pima County since 1990. I served one term as a PC. I’ve worked for the campaigns of numerous Democratic candidates over the past decades.
As far as my volunteer activities, I was the Attorney of the Year for the Volunteer Lawyer’s Program of Pima County for 2011. I was also selected as Attorney of the Month, twice. I serve as a volunteer at domestic settlement conferences in Pima County. Twice a month, I offer my services for free, at the Southern Arizona Legal Aid’s Walkin Advice Clinic. I am a volunteer attorney for the State Department in assisting parents with the return of internationally abducted children. I frequently lecture at women’s shelters on legal issues regarding domestic violence and and protective orders. Now, those are not specifically Democratic issues I know, but I hope you will, nonetheless, accept them as some evidence that I may not be the “ignorant, self-absorbed whiner” you apparently think I am.
I also have four children. During the time that my children were in TUSD schools, I served as the president of my school’s PTA and an active member of its Site Council. So I also have some passing personal familiarity with TUSD’s budget issues.
Engaging in personal invective is exactly the problem I am speaking of. I do not think it is appropriate for those in a leadership position to engage in such vitriol. It is unproductive. In fact, it is counterproductive and I would submit, actively undermines whatever sincere efforts or cogent arguments one makes.
Likewise, he idea that someone’s legal, although perhaps unsavory occupation should be used against them in a campaign is personally distasteful to me. If someone chose, for money, to legally represent a rapist or child molestor, should that also be fair game?
Was Ms. Romero really such a weak candidate that personal attacks against the opposing candidate should have been considered? It wasn’t enough to simply point out the suspicion that his candidacy was a fraud? Is the Party so afraid that Democrats can’t think for themselves that it needs to engage in this sort of attack?
I’m not. And no, regardless of what you and your circle might think, there is not a consensus within the Party that he’s doing a great job.
Once again, my point is not that I agree with Mr. Stegeman or Mr. Cuevas. It’s not that I don’t think Mr. Rogers works hard. Generally, my point is that I believe personal policy disagreements can be settled with mature, thoughtful debate. I also believe that personal disagreements between adults can be settled without resorting to personal insults.
I regret that you do not agree.
I would strongly encourage you to run for County Chair, then. Or TUSD board. Or anything. It sounds like you’ve got a lot of confidence in your views. Let’s see what the community thinks. Seriously. Now that you’ve got everyone’s attention, let’s see what you’ve got.
(Or did we already just see it?)
Mr. Knipe, I do have a lot of confidence in my view that adults should be able to disagree without name-calling. I’m not sure why you find that so disagreeable. I’m also confident that most adults in this community share this view. Best of luck to you.
Who’s name-calling? Go back and re-read what I wrote. I described your piece as “ignorant, self-absorbed whining,” because that’s my opinion of it. No one’s calling you names, and no one’s questioning your adulthood. But I’m excited about your impending foray into politics. It looks like it’s already begun, in fact. And it’s already entertaining. I can’t wait to see what’s next. Best of luck to you too!
There is no “next.” And Mr. Knipe, by name-calling, I am speaking of the subject of what I wrote. Not you.
Mr. Ferrier,
Let me introduce you to some things you are obviously unfamiliar with – the actual facts relevant to your diatribe. First, you quote the Pima County Democratic Party’s by-laws, but only selectively. Perhaps you should read a little more of them. Article 5, Section F(2) provides: “In any election (primary, general, special, partisan or non-partisan) with multiple Democrats running, the County Executive Committee as a body shall not selectively support or endorse the candidacy of certain Democrats and exclude other Democrats from such support unless a majority of seventy-five per cent (75%) of the Executive Committee members present and voting shall approve such exclusion. A candidate may decline to accept such support without disqualifying other Democrats from receiving support”. (Emphasis added).
In 2011, pursuant to the above by-laws section, a resolution was presented to the Executive Committee of the Pima County Democratic Party to endorse Regina Romero over Mr. Flores, the former payday loan lender. The Executive Committee (the “EC”) is a body of about 41 Democrat officials who are also elected as officers of the party or legislative district, representatives of clubs, caucuses, labor, etc. The EC meets every month on the first Monday. The resolution passed unanimously, with one abstention.
Thus, I did not “pick one Democrat over another.” The entire governing body of the Party made the pick and it did so almost unanimously, with well more than the 75% required by the Party’s by-laws.
In addition to being wrong on how the endorsement was made, you are also wrong on the amount of money that was raised to support Regina Romero. It was actually closer to $15,000. I am proud that the party stood up for Regina, who I count as a friend and one of the shining stars of the future of our Party.
As to Mr. Cuevas and Mr. Stegeman, here are the facts. Both were elected with the support of traditional Democratic groups such as labor unions and the Hispanic community. They betrayed both groups. Twice during their tenure, they both voted to “impose” a contract on some of the labor unions in TUSD. This is where TUSD refuses to continue bargaining in good faith and instead imposes a contract in a “take it or leave it” manner. The first time they did it, I discouraged the Party from condemning them.
This past fall, after the second time, it was too much. Labor representatives to our Executive Committee offered a resolution condemning both of them for the “imposed” contracts votes. It failed to get the required 75% when it was first offered. After the resolution was reworked, it passed by more than the 75% margin – which is required by our by-laws. You didn’t quote that section either.
As to the ethnic studies issue, on January 8, 2011, (the same day I was reelected), several hundred of the recently elected Precinct Committeepersons met for our full committee meeting which is held every two years. At that meeting, a resolution was passed UNANIMOUSLY offering unqualified support of the TUSD Ethnic Studies program. Again, despite your false assertions, this was not me, but the entire County Democratic Committee.
You are correct that I was very blunt in my criticism of Cuevas and Stegeman and I stand by my remarks. Appeasement of racists and bullies is cowardly and always has been. They showed no courage or backbone and still don’t.
I’m sure that Mr. Cuevas and Mr. Stegeman believe they are Democrats and I will not dispute that, but I can guarantee you that the groups that supported them the last time will be fielding a new team that is more consistent with what I and many others believe are the values of our Democratic Party. The voters will then have a clear choice.
Finally, Mr. Ferrier, the voter file shows that you are apparently registered as a Democrat. If you are indeed a Democrat, you are free to run as a Precinct Committeeperson and have a direct say in selecting the Party’s leadership. Once elected as a precinct committeeperson, you can even run for a leadership position in our party. But since you describe your one experience as a precinct committeeperson as having been “dragooned,” I suspect that you would just rather lob false diatribes from the outside than do the arduous volunteer work that it actually takes to get our Democrats elected.
I was elected in 2009 with no opposition and then reelected unanimously in 2011 for a second two-year term. During my leadership, we saved nine of the ten Democratic legislative seats in Pima County and both congressional seats in 2010 while Democrats all over the state and country got slaughtered at the polls. More recently, we swept the entire City of Tucson Mayor and Council races this past fall. If we can implement the plan that the Party has created, I fully expect us to go from nine to fifteen legislative seats in Pima County this fall and again hold on to both congressional seats. I think most Democrats in this City and County are pretty happy with my leadership. If not, they can always vote me out at the next two-year meeting or remove me sooner as provided in the by-laws if they are dissatisfied with my work – which, by the way, pays nothing and consumes just as much time a my full-time legal practice.
Jeff Rogers
Mr. Rogers,
It seems that my points regarding your actions and rhetoric have been lost.
At no point have I stated that I agree with Mr. Cuevas or Mr. Stegeman. Instead, I think I’ve very clearly stated that I do not. If you, or the Party as a whole decide to run candidates for their seats and defeat them, I will shed no tear.
My quibble with you is the tone of your rhetoric. Casting political opponents as “evil,” is several rhetorical steps too far. Especially for a person in a leadership position. That sort of rhetoric makes me wince, whether it comes from a Republican or a Democrat.
I have read the bylaws. I certainly understand the process of the vote by which the decision to endorse Mrs. Romero was made. I don’t necessarily object to that, although I do find it rather odd. The reasons publicly proffered and the manner in which the money was spent, however, seem to me, and again, this is my opinion, unduly negative and personal for my taste. I don’t think character assassination is necessarily something I can support.
And please, before the inevitable identification of Mr. Flores as a payday loan operator, I am quite familiar with that industry. When I was poor, and I needed money, for among other things, an alternator for my car, or prescriptions for my children, I took out payday loans. Why? Because I did not have a credit card and banks would not lend me money. The point?
The point is that the world is full of shades of grey. There is little one can point to and accurately label as totally evil, or purely good. Attorneys, above all others, should know better. You have made yourself the public spokesman of the Party. Your words are taken seriously, and they are taken as the words of all of us. I doubt you are unaware of that.
With that in mind, I do not think my criticism, or rejection, of your words or actions, is out of line. I don’t think your statements help the Party. I think, in fact, they’re counterproductive. A measured and logical response keeps focus on the issues. I think fiery rhetoric focuses attention on only one thing. The orator. I think the best possible thing you could do to ensure Mr. Cuevas’ and Mr. Stegeman’s reelection, is to keep insulting them. The crazier you speech, the more harried and sympathetic they seem. You’ve been around elections and politics for a long time. I know you know this.
You are free, as the elected head of the Party, to run it as you see fit. That is your right. It is, however, also my right, and I think duty, to criticize those actions I believe are counterproductive, or to my mind, simply distasteful. I do not think it is a necessary predicate to the exercise of that right that I must run for office within the party, or log a certain number of volunteer hours with various and sundry candidates. I think the D after my name gives me that right.
Additionally, although I regret not making this point clearer, no one, least of all myself, questions your work ethic or your commitment. I know you certainly do not remember me, but twice I have encountered you at my front door, passing petitions for Democratic candidates. You’re the only Chair I’ve ever seen do that sort of work. And you are to be commended for it.
I certainly wish you and the Party I have been a member of for decades, nothing but the best. I reserve my right, however, to disagree with Party leadership.
Rob Ferrier
One problem with Mr. Rogers’s analysis is that the “bullying” from the Democratic Party leadership has been just as aggressive as that coming from the legislature. The difference is that the pressure from the legislature was applied to TUSD as a whole, while the pressure from the Party was applied to individual board members. In the end, the responsibility of individual board members is to protect, according to their own best judgment, the overall welfare of the 50,000+ students in the district, most of who care little about the wars among the adults.
Also, in the 2010 election cycle the Party failed to save both Pat Fleming and Nancy Young Wright, which add to two local legislative losses, not one. If the party had spent less on Romero’s walkover primary win, then it would have more to spend this year on critical legislative races.
So Rob, to be clear, you complaining about Jeff Rogers’ style as he wins elections, and you not going to get invloved in the Party to try to change it?
To be clear, I think it’s possible to “win elections” without resorting to juvenile vitriol or bullying. I think it’s possible for the Democratic Party to accept some disagreement amongst its membership. But that’s me.
Get involved with the Party? I like to think I am involved in the Party. But I guess I’d rather focus my efforts where I believe I can do some actual good. You know, by actually working for organizations that put my values into action. Rather than sitting around with forty or so of my friends and congratulate each other on the fact that we agree on everything.
You all think everything’s ok? This County has had a Democratic majority for a long, long time. Why don’t we dominate local politics? Why don’t we win every election, just based on sheer numbers? Is it possible that a minority of the Party is actively alienating those Democrats who think of themselves as moderate or (gasp!) conservative?
Why did Steve Kozacik get elected? Why did Giffords and Grijalva have such a hard time against such obvious lunatics? Are you really sure that we’re holding our constituency? Are you really sure that this leadership really has a grip on the Democratic voters of this County? I’m not. I look at election returns, especially from the Presidential cycle and see how many Democrats showed up to vote for the President but failed to cast a vote for their local candidates.
You understand what that means? Even though they were at the polls, even though they were already there as Democrats, they failed to cast votes for other Democratic candidates. Does that worry you? It sure worries me.
I’m very worried that the Party is becoming a platform for individual grandstanding. I’m very worried that we are not developing viable candidates for local, state and federal office. And I’m worried that traditional Democratic voters are leaving the Party because they don’t think the Party represents their interests any more.
But that’s me.
As to what to do about it? I don’t know. I know that even bringing up the issue seems to invite ridicule and abuse. But even at that, I think we need to start thinking about it.
Unfortunately, the Pima County Leadership fails to grasp the point here. The real issue here is that when the party leadership takes sides between democrats no matter who they are, it hurts the party and turns off Democrats. I can tell you that playing favorites as is now being done by the Party Chair only deepens the divide within the rank and file democrats. The core values of our party are measured by the actions of its individual leadership. Those actions, unfair as they sometimes can be, reflect the unethical values of its leadership.
In the case of Mr. Flores, the Democratic apparatus raised over $13,000. to run a despicable, dirty slimy personal attack on Mr. Flores. Much of that money was raised by misleading donors. not informing them what the money was for and funneling it through the Democratic Party to fund the so-called independent campaign. But that is water under the bridge as far as I am concerned, I only hope that the Pima County Democratic Party does not stoop that low again.
Mr Rogers can use excuses all he wants and lean on the executive committee on these decisions, the fact is that ultimately, HE is responsible for the unethical and ill advised decisions he so gleefully carries out. Just because its legal, does not mean its right!
In the case of MAS, and the TUSD board, one can disagree with the decision as I do, but those positions are non-partisan and the voters will no doubt make their decisions at the polls with out the Democratic Party Chair announcing to the world that he is the kingmaker as to who should run in the up coming election.
Just for the record, I was involved in the Flores campaign, and to be clear, that campaign is over, someone lost and someone won, my comments here are those of wishing to merely state an opinion on the fallacy of the decisions that this Chairman is trying to defend. To defile another Democrat by the Democratic institution is not only wrong, it is unethical and immoral! If we continue on this path, you can be assured that the republicans will eat our lunch in the up coming elections. In my 40 years involved in Pima County politics at many levels, I regret to come to the realization that the Democrats are becoming more like the Republicans, they eat their own young! Undoubtedly we will see Democratic Primaries in the up coming elections, particularly in the congressional races, I hope the Democratic Party Leadership lets the candidates compete for the minds of the voters without interfering and supporting their anointed favorites, even if they are incumbents. Let the voters decide, once they are nominated, lets go out and get our Democrats elected!
Rob,
You do not seem to understand how we operate because you clearly have not been to any of our meetings. There is plenty of debate and disagreement among our membership on the core issues. I would think that helping elect Democratic candidates does some actual good since they can impact public policy that reflect our values, but that’s just me.
You are right; Democrats not voting is an issue to be concerned about. If only our local Party had somebody how spent weekends going door to door talking to our neighbors about the election, its candidates, and what is at stake. If only we had somebody how spent weeknights calling voters to return their mail-in ballots, and providing information to them if they need help. If only our Party had someone who gave part of their hard earned salary to help pay for the most dedicated staff I’ve ever seen. If only we had somebody who put their words into action. Oh wait we do…Jeff Rogers.
Well then I guess he can do or say whatever he wants. And the rest of us, if we’re lucky, will be allowed to applaud.
Luis, thanks for contributing to this thread. We may disagree about the MAS vote, but I value your opinion and know that we could always have a logical and respectful discussion about the merits of the issue.
How ignorant can Luke Knipe be as Mr. Jeff Rodgers to label Me “Joe Flores” as an owner of a pay day loan business. This was cheap politics. Why did they not mention the fact that for the past 40 years I owned and operated a Drug Store. Both Downtown on the corner of Congress and Meyer known as Flores Pharmacy and on 12th Ave known as Flores Nacional.
I aided My Grown Children to open a check cashing Business on 12th Ave. known as Casa De Cambio.
Facts stand that the Democratic Party “Mr. Rogers” and or his accomplices could not find anything Negative about me, They had to fabricate The pay day loan ownership business. Nonetheless it was a business approved by the State and later rescinded. Fact stands the Flores Family was never engaged in an illegal business.
I would have been a councilman for the People, Not for someone who would tell me how to vote.
And for the record I have been a registered democrat since 1970.
Joe Flores
Only thing worse than politics, is all the joe schmoes that debate them over and over again, and nothing ever changes.
Jeff Rogers is the Pima County Chair and a leader in the Democrat party of Arizona, and that’s what leaders do, lead! All Democrats have the right to disagree with other Democrats, but somewhere along the way I for one appreciate a little incite into candidates that seek my vote. Anyone can register as a Democrat, run and be elected to office, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t a right-wing tea potty Republican last year before they decided to take advantage of the Democrat registration in Pima County. As far as Mark Stegeman’s actions on the Tucson School, that is something the District Voters can decide if he chooses to run for reelection. While I am not in a position to judge his actions on the school board, he is a reasonable and approachable public official.
To a Republican like me, a fascinating part of this exchange is its demonstration of the futility of ‘non-partisan’ elections! The TUSD Board is supposedly non-partisan, but all the Democrats in this exchange regard them as operating not in non-partisan mode, but as representatives of their party.
The move by either party to push for non-partisan elections should be stopped in its tracks. Rather, ALL elections should represent what they are, in the two-party system that is established in this nation: partisan.
[Explanation: Both the genius and the flaw of the two-party system will exist as long as we have ‘winner take all’ elections. The genius is that parties must form coalitions to choose candidates BEFORE elections take place and then continue to satisfy those coalitions after they have won power. The result is, properly followed, a moderating influence upon the extremes of both parties. The flaw of the two-party system has emerged in recent years with the growth of ‘independents’ or no-party voters. These generally represent the ‘middle’ ground that prevents extremism from taking hold. What that now vast middle group has lost is any influence whatever upon the actions of the people they elect, during the time they are in power. As a nation we would be much better off if every voter were required to select one or the other of the two parties. The correction is clear, but impossible: Require party membership to vote in every election!]
Mr Rogers and Ms Cox should get together and sell independents on our two party system.
“Democrats not voting is an issue to be concerned about.”
A bigger concern of yours should be losing existing democratic voters, or voters that are not voting democrat, as opposed to going after lazy, fickle unfaithful voters. Its like when all the deals go to new customers when current customers get ignored. Boy that ticks me off every time.
Mr. Rogers, ever wonder why so many former Democrats…including ones that gave countless volunteer hours…are no longer involved with the Pima County Dems? And even re-registering as independents? Though, your tactics are just following suit with the likes of Biven, Pedersen (who bought his way into his AZ Dem head positon) and a long history of hypocritical Dems who eschew the wishes of their own party through manipulation, changing bylaws, or simply ignoring bylaws that are in place. Almost makes me want to vote Republican…
Great column.
WOW Now that Jeff is a JP candidate his abuse of power attitude strikes again as he is coordinating with Frisby a.k.a Villalobos or whatever shes calling herself these days a JP rookie candidate in precinct 4. Both lawyers struggling financially and now coordinating with lawyers to beat out non lawyers. I thought coordinating fundraising efforts was against the rules, but I guess not for Jeff Rogers. Is this like dark money…
The old democratic party has come to an end. By converting their base to socialism we can reignite the party faithful to contribute and work for socialist/communist candidates. America will flourish under the reins of tight socialism and massive regulation.