Arizona's Own Espresso Pundit

Thank You!

2012-04-09T19:13:48-04:00

Thank you!

The Senate Education Committee approved my nomination to the Board of Regents by a 6-1 vote. The Committee recommendation must now go to the full Senate, but Committee is the hard part.

I have been deeply touched by the level of support that I have received. Thank you to Governor Brewer and her staff for nominating me and for sticking with me. They did a great job working with the Committee members to ensure that their concerns were addressed.

And Thank you to the Committee members themselves--Sens. Crandall, Lewis and Gray had some concerns but were willing to meet with me for several hours to work through them. I appreciate their time and patience. Thank you to Sens. Barto, Klein and Smith for their kind words and support--and most of all for their yes votes! Thank you to Senator Schapira for engaging me in a robust discussion of my views--I'll send you a copy of my laundry tab for removing the sweat stains from my suit.

Thank you to my friends who stepped up to support me--one person in particular gave me some candid advice that was very helpful. Thank you to him.

I only turned in one letter of recommendation--but since it was from Betsey Bayless that was enough. Thank you to Betsey for her initial letter and for her letter to the editor in support as well. That really means a lot. MIHS Chairman "Bick" Bicknell wrote a great letter to the editor as well. Thank you Bick!

I had a lot of my friends from the past chime in on my behalf--special thanks to Bill Mundell who not only wrote a letter in support, but attended the hearing and was ready to testify if needed. Ed Phillips, wrote a letter in support as well. Thank you.

Stan Barnes expressed his support by texting me a couple "way to go" notes during my testimony...I should have turned off the phone--but I always appreciate his encouragement...not to mention his 20 plus years of close friendship.

Speaking of life-long friends, David Schweikert was quick to step up and voice his support as well.

There have literally been hundreds of people who have expressed support for my nomination and I appreciate all of their kind words and efforts on my behalf. Thank you all.

If I am confirmed by the full Senate, I look forward to starting a new chapter in my life.

Speaking of new chapters...you may have read that Espresso Pundit is going to go dark for a while.

I think the Regents position is similar in stature to a Judiciary appointment. I don't think I can serve as a sitting Regent and blog the way I have blogged in the past. So I'm going to put the espresso machine in the attic for a while.

I'll probably end with a few more "wrap up" posts and then sign off for a while. If I return, it will be in a reinvented format that I haven't thought of yet. (Of course, writing is an obsession, so I will have to find some type of outlet or I will explode into a zillion little over-caffeinated pieces.)

So thank you for seven years of readership. We have had a great run, you and me. Thank you for stepping up and helping me when I needed it most. And thank you again to Governor Brewer for her faith and support.

May God Bless You All.

It's an honor to be Nominated...

2012-04-02T16:41:41-04:00

You may have heard that Governor Brewer has nominated me to a Position on the Board of Regents. The Regents position is one of the most coveted in state government and I want to thank Governor Brewer and her staff for this honor. Some folks have asked questions about my nomination and I would like to address a few of them.

Is Patterson really qualified to be on the Board of Regents?

That’s a good question. And I think the answer is clearly yes.

I’m an attorney and a CPA, so I have a solid background in legal and budgetary issues. I served four years in the Arizona House of Representatives—All four years on the Appropriations Committee as well as serving as Chairman of the Banking and Insurance Committee plus the Government Operations Committee. So I understand the legislative process—especially the budget process. (Since I was Chief of staff of the Senate for about a year, I’ve also seen the legislative process from the staff side—which pays better, but isn’t nearly as fun.)

Additionally, I ran the Residential Utility Consumer Office for over four years. RUCO is a small agency, but it deals with complex issues and it’s charged with representing the interests of residential consumers—which I think is great training for sitting on the Board of Regents. After all, the university system is also a complex system with a broad set of stakeholders—some of which don’t have the time, training or ability to be at the table.

While I believe my legal experience, accounting training, legislative service and consumer advocate work alone have provided me with enough experience to serve as a Regent, the position that has provided the most training is my current position as a member of the Maricopa Integrated Health System Board. MIHS is a $600 million integrated health system that includes the County Hospital, 11 clinics and the Burn Center. The system is governed by a five member Board that is elected to four year terms. I was elected in 2008 and serve District 2 which is co-terminus with the County Supervisor district that Don Stapley currently holds.

The hospital faces many of the same problems that the Universities face—shrinking state and federal funding, increasing economic and social pressures and a need to continually refine and re-evaluate its role in the community. My four years on this Board have helped me to work in a Governing Board environment in order to work with a diverse group to handle complex issues. (It's also given me a chance to work with Betsey Bayless who does a great job and has become a really good friend.)

I also have a lot of non-academic qualifications. My undergraduate degree is from UA. My graduate degree is from ASU—and they are 23 years apart--so I have a student’s perspective on both schools. I also have a parent’s perspective. My son is a freshman at the Barrett Honors College. I know how hard the application process is, how frustrating the website can be and how expensive college is. I also think I have good understanding of the employees’ perspective. My mother was hired as a secretary (her word) at UA in 1981 and retired as a Senior Program Coordinator in 2002.

I think that I am clearly qualified.

Here's another concern that I've heard: Patterson has been critical of the Regents and the Presidents.

That's true. Here’s a great example. It’s a post I wrote in 2007 in which I argued tuition had increased so much that kids couldn’t afford college and that many degrees had lost their economic value, so students were opting not to attend—or finish—college. Guess what? My criticisms have become the accepted wisdom. Tuition is too high, many degrees are not economic, students are making rational decisions to forgo college.

The Regents figured out this answer as well and shifted course—and when they did, I praised them for their leadership. Here’s an excerpt from a “Best Of” post that I wrote in January of this year.

Best Organizational Leadership: Fred Duval's Chairmanship of the Board of Regents.

I've certainly been critical of the Board of Regents in the past, but I have to say that I think the Board is moving in the right direction and much of that has been attributable to Fred Duval's work as Chairman.

While the Regents and University Presidents are making great strides in the right direction, I still have concerns. I expressed them here.

Patterson has been unfair to Michael Crow.

I've thought long and hard about this one; I've talked to Dr. Crow and reviewed old posts. I've concluded that I was indeed unfair to Dr. Crow in this post. The post is about Robert Shelton's comments about the Legislature. I also referred to a decision that Dr. Crow had made and lumped them together as examples of "disdain" for the Legislature. That was unfair. Shelton's sins shouldn't fall on Crow. I've since talked to Dr. Crow and I believe that he has a great deal of respect for the Legislature. If confirmed, I look forward to the opportunity to work with him.

Patterson is a lobbyist.

Actually, the way the disclosure rules work, everyone is a lobbyist. Most of my "day job" is legal work in front of the Corporation Commission, but I am indeed a registered lobbyist. Most of my actual lobbying is on behalf of the Foundation for Blind Children. Naturally, I would recuse myself from any Regent votes that affected my clients (although I can't envision any possible overlap.)

Patterson will blog about the Regents.

Actually, I have a strict "no blogging about clients" policy. That's why you don't read about the Hospital or the Corporation Commission in Espresso Pundit. If confirmed, I won't be blogging about the Regent.

So there you have it. I hope that I have addressed any questions that have been raised about my nomination. I look forward to having a frank discussion with the committee members and I hope that they will vote to confirm me.

It has indeed been an honor to be nominated.

The Most Beautiful Spot on the Planet.

2012-04-02T12:15:57-04:00

I spent the weekend hiking Grand Canyon. David Schweikert organized the trip and it went off without a hitch. We went down the South Kaibab trail, stayed the night at Bright Angel Campground and then hiked out the Bright Angel trail on Sunday. At my age, I worry more about survival than time, so I took a bit over four hours to get down and about 6.5 hours to get out.

One of the advantages of the trip is that there is absolutely no chance to check email. One of the disadvantages is that....there's absolutely no chance to check email So I'm going to take a while to catch up.

Here's the group shot. Right to Left: Rick Smith, CEO of TASER International, David and Joyce Schweikert, Don Couvillon who works with the ASU Foundation and Skysong, me, Congressman Peter Welch of Vermont and his two sons Michael and Jimmy plus Mark and Jennifer Dioguardi. It was a great trip with a great group.

Pearce to Boycott New Times

2012-03-29T10:58:03-04:00

Russell Pearce's supporters just sent out this email.

Sen. Pearce and I are calling on all conservatives across Arizona to boycott businesses which advertise with the Phoenix New Times.The PNT is entirely reliant on ad revenue to fund its pro-amnesty, anti-Arpaio, pro-illegal immigration agenda that rabidly attacks Arizona law enforcement, Arizona conservatives and the community leaders and public servants who dare oppose their dangerous, leftist beliefs.

That companies such as local auto dealers, Harkins Theaters and many local restaurants we all patronize fund this campaign against Sheriff Arpaio is something that cannot go on. Corporate responsibility is not limited just to environmental causes and the like. Arizona businesses are (possibly inadvertently) funding the Left’s campaign for lawlessness, crime, illegal immigration, amnesty and worse.

http://www.banamnestynow.com/buy-cott/and in each week’s edition of THE RUSSELL PEARCE SHOW, live on Monday’s at 7pm on KFNX News Talk Radio 1100.

Could this work? The Limbaugh boycott has fizzled, and boycotts are so retro--and so over-called for--that they seem to have lost any punch. In fact, a few years ago I would have said that Pearce is wasting his time, but now I'm not so sure. There are a some factors at play that might just make a Pearce-led boycott an effective tool:

First, New Times itself has changed. We think of New Times as liberal, but it's really more anti-authoritarian. The paper was certainly a pain in Napolitano's backside. Now that the state has a Conservative Governor and Legislature, New Times' anti-authoritarian outlook is also a hard left outlook. The paper has also become a one note tune that's anti Arpaio all the time.

These changes will not be lost on advertisers. After all, Arpaio/Pearce supporters can go to, say, Dan Harkins and rightly say that New Times is trying to destroy them personally. We can debate how much popular support Arpaio/Pearce enjoy, but the number is not small. If Arpaio/Pearce supporters simply stop attending Harkins theaters, that would be noticed. If they start demonstrating in front of Harkins Theaters that would be huge. Harkins would be foolish to risk even one protest for whatever benefit he gets from New Times ads.

Which leads to the second point. New Times has picked up some "respectable" advertisers. Nothing against car alarms, breast augmentation and tatoo removal but those industries are unlikely to care about Russell Pearce's views on anything. Car dealers, restaurants, movie theaters and yes, breast augmentation surgeons however, will be sensitive to large pro-Arpaio crowds in their parking lots. Pearce is smart enough to use the Alinsky rules and will target, freeze personalize and polarize individual advertisers--and not just in Mesa. Shutting down the Harkins megaplex at Scottsdale and the 101 on the opening night of each summer Blockbuster would be a powerful message.

Next, the world is changing in three important ways that will have the potential to make the boycott successful. First is that Pearce can get his message out through the social media, twitter, email plus his radio show. I know that everyone uses social media now, and it may not be the organizational panacea that people claim, but it is very effective for organizing a midsized--a few thousand--group of highly motivated individuals. And having a thousand people break into groups of five or ten and target New Times' 50 biggest advertisers for a few weekends can only be organized--and reported--through social media.

The Internet also gives advertisers more choices. Businesses shouldn't be expected to forgo revenue just because someone is offended by their advertising choices. But now they don't have to. Newspaper advertising is now one of many alternatives and if companies took the money they spent on those full page ads and devoted those same resources to their own social media campaigns they might be better off.

Newspaper economics have also changed. It's not like Pearce is trying to take out New Times at its anti Mecham, anti Symington peak. New Times used to run 224 pages now its often fewer than 100. Newspapers are on life support. Pearce is just going to stand on its oxygen hose.

This boycott is different because Pearce is not trying to change behavior. Most groups launch a boycott because they oppose a specific policy...the company doesn't hire enough minority workers, it offers benefits to its gay employees, it uses sweatshops in Thailand...but Pearce doesn't want to change New Times, he wants to bankrupt New Times. The paper is not ever going to stop opposing him. His only option is to ignore it or destroy it. He's been ignoring it for years and look where it got him.

The Pearce boycott is unlikely to actually drive New Times out of business, but he will hurt them and he may even manage to tip the balance and finish them off.