|
Source
Glendale-Goldwater legal fight over Coyotes continues by Lisa Halverstadt - Jan. 28, 2012 09:20 PM The Republic | azcentral.com Glendale and the Goldwater Institute have bickered over public records related to Phoenix Coyotes negotiations for more than two years, lobbing accusations at one another as the search for a team owner drags on. Goldwater argues that Glendale may have withheld some documents while providing stacks of irrelevant ones. The Phoenix-based conservative watchdog group says Glendale residents have the right to know whether the deal was handled correctly. Glendale officials say that they have not withheld records and that the Goldwater group has taxed city resources and inserted itself into the city's troubled search for a Coyotes buyer. The two sides have become so pugnacious that a court-appointed mediator, called a special master, was appointed this fall to move the case along. The special master -- in this case, a retired judge -- has no allegiance to either side and can offer recommendations to the court judge. Goldwater has asked for a public-records log of documents that were withheld. The city has said dozens of records would harm future Coyotes negotiations if they were released and that it would take more than two years to compile the log. The mediator shocked the city last month when he recommended in a court filing that Glendale officials finish the log within six months. Former Superior Court Judge Robert Myers also criticized the lack of civility between Glendale and Goldwater and recommended that the city release documents the watchdog group alleges may have been withheld for "politically sensitivity" after review by the city's marketing department. The report marks the latest battle of words between the city and the watchdog group. Attorneys speak in sharp tones during court hearings, often interrupting one another to say the other's statements are false. A transcript of a spring meeting between Glendale and Goldwater officials mentioned eye rolls and that Mayor Elaine Scruggs commented that Goldwater representatives lacked manners. A protracted battle The public-records battle could linger in the courts for years, both sides say. Glendale and Goldwater have tussled about records since former Coyotes owner Jerry Moyes entered the team into bankruptcy in 2009. The city appeared to have come to an agreement with Chicago businessman Matthew Hulsizer, who said he would keep the Coyotes at Jobing.com Arena, when Goldwater said the agreement would violate the state's gift clause. The institute threatened a lawsuit. The deal later crumbled, but the public-records case continues. The retired judge's recommendations are the latest polarizing development in the case. Goldwater attorneys hope his suggestions will be approved by the judge assigned to the case, while Glendale officials are sharply opposed to his conclusions. The judge had recommended the city release any documents the marketing department might have withheld and asked the city to speed its process to put together the document log. He also said Goldwater attorneys should be allowed to question Glendale staffers under oath about the city's records processes instead of relying on a previous deposition with an attorney who was hired to assist the city. Glendale has asked to argue the recommendations in court. There is no basis for Goldwater's assertions, and thus, some portions of the retired judge's report, Glendale City Attorney Craig Tindall said. "There is no record that has been pulled for political sensitivity or not disclosed in accordance with law," Tindall said. "This is a non-issue. Other than Goldwater wanting to spin this for their own political agenda, it has absolutely no impact on the case." Glendale has also objected to other recommendations by the retired judge. Handling public records Goldwater's accusation that the marketing department may have withheld documents raises questions about the city's process for releasing public records. The state public-records law bars cities and government agencies from withholding records that include unflattering information about staffers or city business. "The whole purpose of the law is to allow the public to see and analyze what its public officials are doing and to see it in an unfiltered light, and not in the best light a marketing person would want to put their client in, and not in the most flattering light that the city would want," said Dan Barr, a Phoenix attorney who specializes in First Amendment cases. Goldwater contends that Glendale residents have a right to know whether documents are being withheld. Glendale officials say no documents have been withheld. Its marketing department has only reviewed documents that were also released to the media and likely to be the subject of questions. "Many times, the reason for the marketing department's involvement is because once those documents are released, (that department) is the one speaking on behalf of the city or linking reporters up with others in the city," said Julie Frisoni, who oversees the department. Only a city attorney can decide whether a document will be withheld, Frisoni said. Other Valley cities vary in their processes for handling public-records requests. In Chandler and Phoenix, nearly all public-records requests are initially routed through public information or communications departments before they are forwarded to other city departments. Mesa and Scottsdale residents and reporters typically submit records requests directly to city departments. Other municipalities, like Gilbert, Surprise and Goodyear, have residents and the media make requests with city clerks. In all cases, spokespeople say city attorneys decide whether a document is withheld or redacted. The case appears likely to continue for months or even years. Carrie Ann Sitren, a Goldwater attorney, said the group has usually been able to quickly settle records disputes with other cities. Glendale, however, may be withholding documents related to potential or former Coyotes deals and Goldwater has no way of knowing what has not been released, she said. For that reason, the court battle continues long after the unraveling of the deal Goldwater had criticized. "If wanting to know what the city is doing with public tax dollars is butting in, then I guess we are butting in, but as far as steering the course of the city's business, we have no interest in doing that except to steer the city away from illegal conduct, from an illegal deal," she said. Glendale maintains that the watchdog group simply wants to make a name for itself and is expending city resources and dollars in the process. "You should be cautious of buying into dishonesty that has arisen from Goldwater's self-serving interpretations," said Tindall, the city attorney. "Their accusations and suppositions are nonsense." |