凍結 天然氣 火車

"No matter what the facts, there's always a high bar there. The courts aren't going to (step in) merely because they disagree with it. Usually, the violation has to be pretty blatant."

[Translation - if the government is only disobeying the Constitution in minor ways the courts will allow them to continue to disobey the Constitution - What a crock!!!]

Source

Goldwater's Coyotes lawsuit faces uphill battle

Experts: Odds against Goldwater Institute

by Lisa Halverstadt - Jun. 17, 2012 09:26 PM

The Republic | azcentral.com

The Goldwater Institute may face an uphill battle Tuesday when it tries to invalidate Glendale's Phoenix Coyotes deal.

The City Council on June 8 approved a $324 million lease agreement with Coyotes suitor Greg Jamison. Less than a week later, the Phoenix-based conservative watchdog group sued, alleging improprieties.

Some legal experts are skeptical of Goldwater's chances.

"No matter what the facts, there's always a high bar there," Phoenix-based constitutional-law attorney Dan Barr said. "The courts aren't going to (step in) merely because they disagree with it. Usually, the violation has to be pretty blatant."

The watchdog group already had tried to delay the council vote with a court injunction. The judge had ruled the court did not have the authority to do so.

The two sides will be back in court 10:30 a.m. Tuesday, this time before Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Dean Fink. It's unknown how soon Fink could rule, although Goldwater has requested a same-day decision.

Goldwater sued the city on behalf of two residents, claiming Glendale didn't have enough votes for an emergency measure to approve the lease. The 20-year agreement passed on a 4-2 vote, with one councilwoman absent, rather than the five "yes" votes necessary to immediately enact the deal as an an emergency measure.

Goldwater also says the city should have allowed other groups to bid on a contract to manage the city-owned Jobing.com Arena, which might have been cheaper than the $10 million to $20 million the city is set to pay Jamison each year.

Glendale acknowledged that while the city attempted to pass the deal as an emergency measure so it would go into effect immediately, there weren't enough council votes, so it won't be effective for 30 days.

And the city's rule book contains exceptions the Goldwater suit doesn't mention.

The charter gives Glendale officials some discretion on when bidding is required. For example, the city manager can decide to bypass the process when he or she decides it's unlikely to reduce expenses or could cause delays or unnecessary spending.

Legal experts say it's unlikely the judge will invalidate the council vote unless Goldwater makes a strong case in court.

The council is a legislative body, and courts give governmental entities wide discretion to make decisions, said David Derickson, a Phoenix-based defense attorney.

"For me, as a former judge and a legal observer, I would think it would be very difficult for the court to interfere with a lawful process," Derickson said.

Goldwater says Glendale must prove why it doesn't deserve sanctions, such as invalidating the vote.

"This (lawsuit) gives the court an opportunity to make Glendale public officials comply with open-meetings and public-records laws, which they have broken repeatedly," said Darcy Olsen, president of Goldwater.

In another area of legal concern, Goldwater says Glendale failed to post two documents before the vote and that the city rushed to vote. The city's attorney has said the documents have not yet been created and, once they are, will not substantively change the council-approved agreement.

Goldwater has an ongoing lawsuit with Glendale to release records for the past three years that the city has sought a team buyer.

And the group is weighing whether to sue Glendale over a potential gift-clause violation but says the two missing exhibits are essential to determine if Glendale's payments to Jamison are "grossly disproportionate" to what the city receives in the deal.

Glendale dismisses those claims and Goldwater's arguments in the current case.

"The arguments presented to the court by the Goldwater Institute and the other plaintiffs attempt to invalidate a decision by duly elected representatives of the citizens," the city said in a statement.