SedonaEye.com J. Rick Normand, Investigative and Financial Columnist
Sedona AZ (June 26, 2016) – Sedona luminary Terrie Frankel posted this to her Facebook Account on June 25 along with 23 pictures to support her statement(s) as to who was in attendance:
“Steve Segner and wife Connie of El Portal Sedona Hotel, recently hosted Dr.Andrea Houchard and her popular Philosophy in the Public Interest Salon at their famed Thompson Ranch up Oak Creek Canyon. What made this event so interesting is that nearly 80 Philosophy Scholars from around the country – participating in a Philosophy Retreat at NAU – were bused down the Canyon to mingle with some of Sedona’s most notable and interesting local friends of the Segner’s. Following a tour of the Segner’s authentic Arts and Crafts home built by Joel DeTar, the guests gathered in small groups to participate in philosophical discussions. Historian Segner says such discourse influenced and shaped American societies of the 20’s, 30’s and 40’s. The gathering was a resounding success and Steve says he plans to host more of these intellectual gatherings in the future. From Emus trotting on the perfectly manicured lawn – to the delicious barbecue – this was a summer evening memory we will treasure. Guests included: Paul Friedman, Mei Wei Wong, John Sather, Charlie and Karen Schudson, Al Comello, Laura Van House, Angela LeFevre, Mayor Sandy Moriarty, City Manager Justin Clifton, Council Members John Martinez, Scott Jablow, and Jessica Williamson, Col. Judith Patton, etc.”
It would seem that Ms. Frankel, while reveling in her socially adroit presentation of Steve Segner’s culturally regnant commentaries to those Facebook minions addicted to unabashed self-promotion, also unwittingly confirmed a violation of the Arizona Open Meeting Law, A.R.S. § 38-431 through 38-431.09, by the four current Council members highlighted in her FB post. The attendance of these four constituted a quorum for a Council meeting under the law irrespective of their physical location or social purpose for being there. Furthermore, there seems to be a violation as to timely notice and posting of said gathering under A.R.S. §38-431(A) and (C). To date, several people have asked Arizona Liberty, in which this writer is a partner, to file a request for investigation to the Arizona Attorney General’s Open Meeting Law Enforcement Team (OMLET) under A.R.S §38-431.06.
When I questioned Ms. Frankel’s recount of the above-mentioned social gathering in a personal email to me earlier on Saturday, June 25, 2016 10:24 PM, Terrie Frankel wrote back:
Hi Rick… Why is everyone upset? I don’t understand… Please explain. Terrie
My reply to her ignoble naïveté was:
“Why is everyone upset? Well, Terrie, it was knowingly staged as a violation of state Open Meeting laws to start with. Everyone from the Council who was there, as well as Angela LeFevre and the City Manager, knew it. Apparently, nobody bothered to tell you! Meanwhile, the timing was extraordinarily suspicious because the FY 2016-2017 Tentative Budget comes before the City Council for rubber-stamping at its regular city Council meeting this upcoming Tuesday, June 28th. The proposed budget was submitted in April by City Manager Justin Clifton who attended your Segner gathering, while the City Finance Director, who usually presents it, will not be doing so. Estimated Revenues are $33,210,895 while Budgeted Expenditures are $38,360,866. That’s a $5,149,971 dangerously huge deficit at the worst possible moment in decades. Notwithstanding that huge projected deficit, I am reliably told that the requested $2,009,828 allocation for the CofC (almost 40% of the projected deficit) was a casual discussion item at the subject gathering. And, of course, a very sizeable portion of this allocation to the CofC from the City of Sedona Treasury is funneled on down to Steve Segner’s Sedona Lodging Council. Nine people who are political activists in this town picked up on this whole scenario before the first one ever contacted me. I guess you had a party last night which was attended by several of my fans or friends who somehow found out about your FB posting, although some of them found it posted this morning at The Eye by Steve Segner himself. Boasting in print about a meeting co-hosted by you, which was in violation of state statutes, and attended by candidate/office holders and their campaign donors, most of whom are the direct beneficiaries of the massive deficit about to be imposed on this little town just as the US economy has gone into an unrecoverable flat spin, probably set off the firestorm, don’t you think? I hope this explanation has clarified the issue for you, Terrie. Due to no effort on my part, I’m willing to bet that this issue will go viral by Tuesday.~Rick”
While this may seem to be no big deal to many readers and citizens of Sedona…it is a big deal! The fact that the Mayor of Sedona and three sitting Councilors (and its City Manager) would intentionally violate a state statute, one they’re all taught by the City Attorney when they take their oath of office, is egregious to say the least and a demonstration of total disrespect to the residents and voters in and of our town at the worst! Still, Ms. Frankel, undoubtedly like most Sedona residents who’ve never taken the time to watch how the establishment in Sedona is always pushing the envelop(e) of ethics and legal constraints, still needed more explanation. So, I wrote this to her…
“Btw, just to clarify, Terrie…of course the social gathering at Steve Segner’s house was not illegal but what was illegal was for four sitting City Councilors to be there at the same time. They all took an oath of office to support and defend the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Arizona. The latter has a law known as the Open Meeting Law, which is so dangerous when violated that the State set up a special division of the Attorney General’s office to accept requests for inquiries and to conduct investigations when the law is apparently violated. The law says that a quorum of political office holders with voting authority (in Sedona that would be four Council members) may not meet for any purpose without issuing a proper notice to the public and an invitation to the public to attend so that they may hear anything mentioned potentially concerning (City) government business. That was simply not done relative to the Houchard/Segner social event. No one would have known of this violation of the Arizona Open Meeting Law if not for having found out about it in your Facebook posting. Worse yet, there appears to be a monumental question of impropriety when the invitee list to the social function at Segner’s house matches up to the campaign donors and beneficiaries list for the last and next elections. Prevention of this prospect is precisely why the Open Meeting Law was passed in 1962. The moment City Councilor’s are sworn in, the City Attorney schools them in the Arizona Open Meeting Law. There is just no way that any of those Councilors in attendance and the Mayor didn’t know the law, as did Angela LeFevre.”
To use the Facebook crowd’s vernacular, the Houchard/Segner social gathering was meant to be “in your face!” voters of Sedona. It was meant to make it clear to all of us who are tired of the same old corrupt city practices and reckless spending that nothing is going to change, that the same insiders are still in control, and that there will be consequences for any of us opposed to their insider dealings! The entirety of the world is now revolting against the entrenched corrupt establishment. The same revolt needs to happen here…and now!
Read www.SedonaEye.com for daily news and interactive views!
Thank you Mr. Normand! Great information. Spreading the word.
Bravo Rick !!!
We need to spread the word on how crooked and irresponsible the City of Sedona has become.
I can’t imagine giving over $2,000,000 to the Chamber of Commerce for discretionary spending when the city is going to be $5,000,000 in the red this year.
Just plain wrong and irresponsible !!
Thank you, Rick, for bringing this to the forefront. Because the State of Arizona currently functions under the premise that local control should remain local, which to put it simply is an invitation to snub State Statutes, it nevertheless does not make it ethical or correct. In tandem with this brazen perceived violation of the Open Meeting Law, Sedona government continues to ignore the purpose of the discretionary bed tax increase, which essentially should benefit only those collecting the taxes. Quoting in part from an article, “Inquisitive Minds” Sedona Eye, January 27, 2015:
“Rightfully the ‘Destination Marketing’ contract should have gone directly for the betterment of those collecting the bed tax, specifically legitimate licensed lodging facilities within Sedona City Limits, whether or not they are members of either the Chamber of Commerce or Sedona Lodging Council. They, the Legitimate Licensed Lodging Facilities within City Limits, should be the benefactors of direct marketing. Why does that continue to be ignored?”
Clearly by giving the regional Chamber of Commerce carte blanche to promote their members outside city limits that are not responsible for collecting city taxes is a violation of the discretionary taxation law. It is not the City of Sedona’s responsibility to represent the members of the Chamber of Commerce. Little wonder Camp Verde and Williams no longer have local Chambers because wisely both cities have acknowledged the role of a Chamber of Commerce is to take care of their members . . . period . . . and they no longer fund them. However, businesses in both of those communities, as well as others even outside Arizona, have the opportunity to join this regional Chamber of Commerce with the prospect of actually benefiting from Sedona tax revenue. Not, according to State Statutes, the way it should be. But in Sedona, who cares? Well, those that are being kicked to the curb care. But they obviously do not matter.
To my recollection it was Fife Symington when he was governor who vastly changed the function of the Attorney General’s office and one can no longer file a complaint about a perceived municipality breach, be assigned a case number, and have assurance the matter will appropriately be investigated. Violation of the Open Meeting Law may be the only remaining exception.
But this City Council and at least certain staff members, surely aware of the lax enforcement of State Law, aggressively and openly continue to flaunt violations in the faces of the good but naive people of Sedona who actually believed incorporation would offer the exclusive protection that had been promised. Clearly the exact opposite has occurred.
Could it be that Sedona’s version of Pandora’s Box is being rewritten with this explosive announcement and hopefully renewed concern by those citizens constantly being oppressed? Remember the recent public meetings about the proposal for a new garbage collection branch of local government? The requirements for bids on that process are also a slap in the face to the proprietors of legitimate garbage hauling enterprises. So you see, they will at a whim even go against those outside City Limits if they have a glimmer of opportunity to assess legitimate city residents with monthly bills, amount to be determined at their discretion.
Excellent job, Rick, and as only one voice out here in the wilderness, thank you from the bottom of my heart.
Over & Out
Eddie Maddock
Rick, great job, but as you probably know, even if the AG does anything about the scofflaws (assuming a complaint is filed), 1) It will probably take months for the AG to do anything about it. 2) The “punishment” will likely be a slap on the wrist, consisting of a stern warning and possibly making the violators do the open meeting law equivalent of traffic school.
Not saying don’t file a complaint, just saying what I have seen happen in the past re open meeting law violations.
JRN
Your picture looks like that of a washed up Overweight zombie…
I guess your mad that it was a meeting for intelligent folks and your were left out…
Self-help resources available:
The Arizona Ombudsman – Citizens’ Aide handbook – T
he Arizona Open Meeting Law
(available on line at
http://www.azoca.gov
under open meetings/publication)
The Arizona Ombudsman’s website, http://www.azoca.gov
Arizona Agency Handbook, Chapter 7,
http://www.azag.gov
– Quick Links
Attorney General Opinions –
http://www.azag.gov
==========================================================
I will assume you have this information, they have been called and your proceeding?
========================================================
Questions/File a complaint:
Arizona Ombudsman-Citizen’s Aide (602) 277-7292
File a complaint/Enforcement authority
Attorney General’s Open Meeting Law Enforcement Tea
m (602) 542-5025
County Attorney’s Office
Mr. Norman. Rumor has it that you live in the village, is there any truth to that?
Also, can you please answer Mr. Segners question posted several times under a different topic, are you for or against the sanitation initiative?
Thank you for letting the public, or at least those that read the eye, know about their improper meeting. I know John knows the law and I am surprised he ignored it. It does at time seem unfair but it is the law and should be adhered to, especially if many of those invited are heavily donating to campaigns. That is why it is difficult to get others into office, many voters vote base on incumbents or who puts out the most campaign material instead of their stance and history.
I am not running for office this time because of the timing of things going on in my life to focus the proper amount of time to run and possibly in office. There may come a time in the future, time will tell. Besides, the current council made it clear I am not wanted on the council and they even preferred to interview someone who does not technically live inside the city even if by law he can by using his business address. To me, the law did not prevent them from ranking him last in the interview list and thus exclude him from being interviewed. Thankfully he removed his name from consideration.
Whenever I have been involved in things, I have always followed the rules and if it were me, I would have not gone or suggested one of the other council members leave.
It will be interesting to see what the state response will be, probably just a hand slap saying they should not have all been there.
Hey you bashers of Rick Normand. Knock it off. He has a NONPOLITICAL POINT as a city resident who doesn’t have to answer any question he doesn’t want to answer. He’s a COLUMNIST and writes what HE wants. He probably laughs his ass off at your childish and drunken tirades aimed at taking the conversation from meat to salad. More power to him to keep his mouth shut when you can’t.
Holding on never letting go = Power money greed
Rick, I enjoyed your article.
As a past member of the Board of Directors or our HOA we had to comply with ARS 33-1804 regarding open meeting laws. While not specifically the same as ARS 38-431 there are similar conditions that define a “meeting” of the quorum that do not preclude a gathering of a quorum of members.
ARS 38-431.D defines a meeting as “the gathering, in person or through technological devices, of a quorum of members of a public body at which they discuss, propose or take legal action, including any deliberations by a quorum with respect to such action.” Now, if the quorum of city council members did not “discuss, propose or take legal action” I’m not sure their attendance at the gathering was a “meeting”.
How do you prove what took place? Beats me. From past experience it is difficult to NOT discuss business at such gatherings.
But the fact that they were in attendance was not illegal in my opinion.
Again, good article.
J Ricky, can you elaborate on your comment: ” Worse yet, there appears to be a monumental question of impropriety when the invitee list to the social function at Segner’s house matches up to the campaign donors and beneficiaries list for the last and next elections.”
Are you saying that elected officials can never socialize with anyone who gave them campaign funds????
@ All Readers at The EYE,
I served this on the City of Sedona this afternoon and they graciously gave me a signed receipt:
*NOTICE OF POSSIBLE ARIZONA OPEN MEETING VIOLATION*
June 27, 2016
Susan Irvine
City Clerk
David Jakim
Records Clerk
City of Sedona
102 Roadrunner Drive
Sedona, AZ 86336
Re: NOTICE OF POSSIBLE ARIZONA OPEN MEETING VIOLATION and
Demand for Tabling of the Below-mentioned Agenda Items at the Special
City Council Meeting and the Regular City Council Meeting Scheduled for
June 28, 2016, as follows;
Special City Council Meeting
Tuesday, June 28, 2016, 4:00 p.m.
Agenda Item #3. Special Business
a. AB 2116 Public hearing/discussion/possible action on approval of a
resolution adopting the City of Sedona’s Budget for Fiscal Year 2016-17.
and
Regular City Council Meeting
Tuesday, June 28, 2016, 4:30 p.m.
Agenda Item #4. Appointments
a. AB 2134 Discussion/possible action on appointment of a Vice Mayor.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the City of Sedona Council,
Please be apprised, by complainant Arizona Liberty, of a possible violation, in fact, of the Arizona Open Meeting Law, A.R.S. § 38-431 through 38-431.0 and a possible violation as to timely notice and posting of said questionable open meeting gathering under A.R.S. §38-431(A) and (C) as a result of the recent social gathering known as Dr.Andrea Houchard’s “Philosophy in the Public Interest Salon,” at The Thompson Ranch up Oak Creek Canyon, which was attended by Mayor Sandy Moriarty, and City Councilors John Martinez, Scott Jablow, and Jessica Williamson. Details of this fact are confirmed in the article of even date by the undersigned at:
https://sedonaeye.com/how-much-abuse-is-sedonas-voting-public-willing-to-take/
Please be advised that upon the urging of learned counsel, Arizona Liberty intends to file a request for investigation of the above-mentioned matter to the Arizona Attorney General’s Open Meeting Law Enforcement Team (OMLET) organized under A.R.S §38-431.06. Resultant of this notice, Arizona Liberty hereby demands that Council table for later consideration the Agenda Items recited above as any decisions made by Council relative to those Agenda items could be set aside by the Arizona Attorney General.
ARIZONA LIBERTY,
J. Rick Normand
cc: Mike Schroeder and Dwight Kadar
Accepted by, in behalf of the City of Sedona:_________________________________________,
on June 27, 2016.
*****
I have no doubt they will either arrogantly ignore it or ask the City Attorney to render an opinion that will mollify (that’s not a misprint) it but, either way Council will be hearing from the State of Arizona. The Attorney General’s finding COULD, but not necessarily will, nullify the votes taken by the Council tomorrow on the two resolutions referenced in the NOTICE.
JRN
@ West Sedona Resident
So both Rick and this Julianna you mention have rebuffed your advances? Being a middle age and fading city employee that has been passed over three times for advancement, do you think you will ever be promoted? Does it give you satisfaction that the wasteful spending you have contributed to has put the city in the red now and in the future?
Do you think anyone will hire you when the city goes broke?
Please answer the above questions. Use your real name in your response as you so often demand of others.
AZ Liberty you rock!
@Mr J. Rick,
No, I built my house in west Sedona 13 years ago and have never lived in the VOC or any small town until I moved here. Also, I don’t answer to heckler’s demands that have nothing to do with my articles posted above their comment. My function in the blogger’s roll is to answer questions about my related articles.
@Oh Ricky,
The mere fact that you would ask the question that you have tells me that you’re one of those who likes to spew out questions, or shoot from the hip as it were, without having read the antecedent information provided by a writer in his/her article or in the related blog roll. Apparently, notwithstanding all the info provided on the 54 year old Open Meeting Law in this state, you either read nothing within it or, you did, but can’t understand its language. I’m not saying anything…the law is! If fact, if I may suggest, try doing some reading on the history of Open Meeting Laws and why they exist in the first place.
JRN
Now the real test, lets see how the Arizona Attorney General’s Open Meeting Law Enforcement Team (OMLET) deals with J Ricky’s claim:
1- If they disagree with J Ricky’s claim will he be posting that decision for all of us to see that he’s being his normal A-S HO-E bully and keep the decision from us and hope that we’ll loose interest???
2- If they agree with J Rick’s claim is sounds to me that a 10 years sentence or “OFF WITH THEIR HEADS” is warranted.
The question remains how many other events have four or more council members attended at the same time. And who’s to know what city subjects were inadvertently discussed? Just that opportunity allows time for opinions regarding decisions to be made.
Further on several occasions during future events at the end of council meetings Mayor Sandy has inquired about how many council members will be riding together, for example, to meetings in Cottonwood or other events involving the city council. Four of them riding any distance in a car aren’t going to discuss priorities or current subjects? My bet is “yes.”
These little meetings surely must occur regularly because they flaunt the laws because they know they can get away with it. No respect for us. They all need to go. Staff fired. Council resign. Sedona goes bankrupt and incorporation dissolved. Back to our respective county jurisdiction. Much better.
@So Rick-here’s your test
Blah, blah, blah! Yawn! LL
JRN
Worse city council ever. Yep I like to see them all get “off with their heads” @ So Ricky-here’s is your test. (WSR)
You sound like you have some attractions to J Rick. Did he shut you down?
Great Job Rick!
A meeting is a gathering, in person or through technological devices of a quorum of a public body at which they discuss, propose or take legal action, including deliberations. A.R.S. § 38-431(4). This includes telephone and e-mail communications.
A party is not a Quorum!
a quorum of a public body at which{ they discuss, propose or take legal action}, including deliberations
Just some information was a great evening
ss
@steve Segner,
As usual Segner, you’re a halfwit who spouts off about things you know nothing about. Read the law bonehead. An Open Meeting Law violation can ONLY occur at a venue which is OUTSIDE the Council Chambers where a quorum of city officials happens to meet for ANY purpose, social or otherwise, wherein city business is discussed which did happen at your party according to witnesses in attendance. Ask our City Attorney if I’m correct or not. Damn, and you want to be on the City Council even though you’re so blatantly ignorant of the law which is the first law that Councilors are taught by the City Attorney upon taking their Oath of Office. And, btw, I will recite you asinine comment to the AG’s OMLET Office.
JRN
@steve Segner,
P.S. I will recite your asinine comment above to the AG’s OMLET Office and to our own City Attorney if Council dares to consider your name at the Council’s Agenda today to appoint a replacement for Mark DiNunzio.
JRN
HOW MUCH ABUSE CAN SEDONA TAKE WITH THIS IDIOT BACK & FORTH. SHUT UP! STICK TO THE SUBJECT, MAKE A VALID POINT OR COUNTERPOINT OR SHUT THE (deleted by editor) UP! WHY IS SOMEBODY EVEN ACKNOWLEDGING THAT WEST SEDONA RESIDENT????? LET THE LITTLE (deleted by editor) YAMMER & ACCUSE ALL HE WANTS & PRETEND HE DOESN’T EXIST. WHY LOWER YOURSELVES?????? STFU!!!!!
SS
Way To go SS
Little Ricky sounds like a kid who wasn’t picked to be on a baseball team as a kid cause he’s to fat, slow and stupid…
J Rick you are and continue to be an (deleted by editor)
Dear steve Segner,
You say, “a quorum of a public body at which{ they discuss, propose or take legal action}, including deliberations” “A party is not a Quorum!” Are you serious? The fact that the quorum was at your party has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the fact that a Council quorum was at your party.
What kind of a festering joke on the complexion of this city are you? Your definition is NOT EVEN CLOSE to the correct legal definition of a “quorum.” It’s clear from your definition that you don’t even have the slightest idea what the word means. Yet you want to embarrass this town by serving on its Council?
From Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed.:
***QUORUM***
In the absence of any law or rule fixing the quorum, it consists of a majority of those entitled to act.
A MAJORITY of an entire body; e.g., a quorum of a legislative assembly.
[Notice there is NO mention of location or purpose of the social or business function at which the quorum convenes in the definition]
Sorry Rick,
You are wrong one more time, tonight’s meeting is not to appoint a replacement for Mark but to pick a new vice mayor, (John) the city will not be replacing him.
Get in the loop.
Rick still not answer on trash? farad to answer?
ss
It’s a shame to see such willful abuse of the Opening Meeting Laws by our City of Sedona elected City Councilors. Sadly, I’m not surprised.
humm …….
steve Segner says:June 28, 2016 at 11:45 am
“Rick still not answer on trash? farad to answer?”
Why would Mr. Normand answer any questions from an Illiterate buffoon like you Steve? It’s not because he is “farad” (your word). Rick is vastly knowledgeable and an asset to our community. While we all get a giggle from your posts. You continue to make a fool of yourself.
Thank you J. Rick Normand, we have ha more than enough. Please let us know how we can help. I’ll be there!
J. Rick etal, get over it. Segner in total control at today’s meeting. No replacement for M. Dinunzio – just appointed J. Martinez as Vice Mayor. And for the record, J. Thompson set in motion for Steve & Jen to head up a committee to oversee handling of short-term/vacation rentals! (a planned decision during one of the open meeting law breaches?) Council in jovial mood. Segner in deep discussion with city attorney and city manager during 10 min. recess. What more could you ask for at the tune of $35,000 weekly? Isn’t that $5,000 daily so maybe you witnessed $2,500 of services (lip that is) during tonight’s meeting.
Who gave Segner John Martinez’s name? What’s the purpose of meetings if decisions aren’t made there, but made having food in occ & a non councilor gets to announce it publicly like Segner did at 11:45 a.m. here on the Sedona Times?
https://www.youtube.com/embed/TnQDW-NMaRs?rel=0
You need to remember. Patriotism is honorable. Nationalism isn’t. One for all and all for one. God bless America. Land that we love.
What’s all the talk about trash. Stupid idea.
Rule #1 in sensible government – if it is the yellow pages – GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED.
Then we would not need all that extra office space for a city that HAS NOT GROWN IN 10+ YEARS.
The problem is we do not (obviously) have a sensible government. Otherwise why would they be putting out RFP’s to legitimate garbage hauling businesses that will basically just be asking them to serve as sub-contractors. This city wants to have residents work through their department – request service, additional cans, size of cans, back door assistance, which in turn they will convey to the selected garbage hauler, but city will do the billing. Just another branch of government and yet they continue to claim they cannot afford a legitimate Sedona City Visitors Center.
Who would be foolish enough to even bid on such a blatant and stupid offer? All it is is another rigged method to collect monthly charges, same as the sewer. We need to be Liberated!
@All Readers at TheEye:
Governor Ducey signed Senate Bill 1487 into law in March 2016:
Gov. Doug Ducey signed into law this bill that allows state leaders to withhold state-shared revenue from cities if the attorney general determines a city or county has passed a regulation that conflicts with state law. Under Senate Bill 1487, any state lawmaker can ask the attorney general to investigate a regulation. The city or county will be given a period of time to resolve the issue and then, if it does not, will be fined.
I have a feeling that the City of Sedona will be one of the first against whom a complaint is filed.
read story at this link:
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/legislature/2016/03/17/doug-ducey-signs-bill-punish-cities-counties-shared-revenue/81937226/
JRN
I am running out of patience for that “sensible government” to arrive in Sedona. It seems to me that any “sensible” person could see that the high cost of rents both commercial, as well as residential repels any “sensible” person from wanting to; live here as a resident, or even have a business here. Add to those limits if a person expects to have his/her school aged children education. Where is the “sensible” government who sees the connection between the ability to earn at least a living wage, pay “reasonable” rent and have their kids get a good education? Where is the “sensible” government that puts an end to permitting a few individuals to monopolize ownership of property, especially in areas where the City is funded by taxes? We definitely need to be Liberated!!
to answer <Longing for sensible govt
Gov. Doug Duceys, overriding local zoning laws and letting anyone rent out rooms by the night just killed any chance of low income housing.
Cheep, apartments can now be rented out by the night, for $99.00 to $150.00
that is $2,000 to $4,000 a month why would any landlord rent on a monthly basses?
Small back houses that locals rented not will net rented by the night.
There are over 400 jobs open in Sedona most $12 to $15 + it is not the pay it's the housing.
Republicans want less government, well this is what you get.
ss
If it gets rid of you it’s worth it.
@ steve Segner
Steve, I suggest that rather than complain that others in Sedona may now legally rent their rooms for “$99.00 to $150.00 that is $2,000 to $4,000 a month why would any landlord rent on a monthly basses?”
Why don’t you make El Portal low rent housing. I suggest $600 per month per room. I’m sure with your connections in City Hall you could get your place rezoned to low rent housing. Well Steve?
Code of silence~~~~~~~~~~~Give it back to those providing vacation rentals pay better than the cheap asx lodging council members. Hit them between their legs……..
Did you hear the council appointed jennifer and steve to be police over vacation rentals………. Stick it to them. :) They don’t treat you or the residents or workers well. They are misusing taxpayers funding.~~~~~~ PARTY ~~~~~~
stick it to them. Let your neighbours know. Don’t participate in reporting vacation rentals.Make them TAX FREE. Hurt them where it hurts,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, their pocket books!!!!!!
It IS us against them!!!!!!!!!
,
Well it is nutsville once again Governor Ducey just enable the PEOPLE!!!!! HURRAY!!!!
What the hell do you care @ss? you claim over and over the flatlanders have to live in cottonwood where the affordable housing is. That is NOt gonna change. How does it feel to be the most hated person in the vv steve? You r a (deleted by editor).
@Steve Segner
You missed one category, not only will we not have affordable housing but we will no longer have employee housing either.
@All Readers at The Eye:
Appearance of Open Meeting violations:
In an article this morning, July 1, 2016, in The New York Times entitled ***”Lynch to Accept F.B.I. Recommendations in Clinton Email Inquiry, Official Says”*** you will find the below-mentioned statement regarding the chance meeting between Bill Clinton and current U.S. Attorney General on the tarmac at Phoenix Sky Harbor airport which was TANTAMOUNT to a federal Open Meeting Law violation:
“Even some Democrats criticized the meeting. ‘It doesn’t send the right signal,’ Senator Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware, said in response to a question on CNN’s “New Day.” While he said he believed that Ms. Lynch was an independent prosecutor, “I think she should have steered clear, even of a brief, casual, social meeting with the former president.”
Attorney General Lynch has stonewalled permitting the FBI’s likely recommendation of the indictment of Hillary Clinton over her State Dept illegal transmission of govt emails on her private home email server for many months. She {Lynch] had to give in and agree to follow the likely FBI’s recommendation to indict Mrs Clinton due to her ill-advised meeting with Bill Clinton. This seemingly ill-advised meeting shows clearly the significance of what are tantamount to Open Meeting violations within government at any level much less Open Meeting Law violations, in fact, at the state level.
JRN
Yes that is the way Sedona does it. @Longing for sensible govt. Nothing sensible around here. Nothing fair. Then we hear that the citizens don’t contribute over and over. That is simply a lie.
The loosely written law that lets Steve vote on city politics by claiming he lives at his business while we all know he lives outside the city limits, up Oak Creek Canyon needs to be changed. Most states use the wording “primary residence” for voting. It must live in that location for more than months out of year.
It would be wonderful if Mr. Norman and the Arizona Liberty group could get the state to change that law.
To All of Sedona:
Funniest comment of the year aimed at the verbose Steve Segner~
@steve Segner says:
June 30, 2016 at 5:26 pm
If it gets rid of you it’s worth it.
@All Readers at The Eye
It is now reported by all mainstream media that relative to her clandestine meeting with Bill Clinton, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch has stated on the record that:
” I certainly wouldn’t do it again because I think it has cast a shadow over how this case will be perceived,” Lynch said at an Aspen Ideas Festival event.”
“Believe me, I completely get that question. I think it’s the question of the day,'” she added.
It seems that the same thing should have occurred to the Sedona City Council and Mayor last week when they met at the Houchard/Segner wing ding as a quorum. They should have known that their presence there would become the question of the day! How could they have possibly believed that it was no big deal when they knew the law? But, maybe they listened to the erudite Mr. Segner’s legal opinion as to the meaning of the AZ Open Meeting Law (as ONLY he could define it above) instead of that of the City Attorney of Sedona?
JRN
Norma you are so funny you answer you own question, Yes Arizona let me vote in Sedona, the place I spend the majority of my time and tax money ,get over it
1/2 of Sedona resident have second homes.
ss
Vote NO for ALL franchise fees in August!!!!!
The city does not deserve it!
NO NO NO Vote NO for ALL franchise fees in August!!!!!
Sedona has changed over the last 10 years. Become more corrupt.
We need help Rick. It is time to stop this insane city. We would be very grateful to you , Mike and Duane. Sedona needs this.