Arizona's Own Espresso Pundit

A Textbook Case of Ethical Lapse.

For the past couple days, I've been pointing out the incredible ethical lapse in Republic Publisher John Zidich's decision to remain on the Fiesta Bowl Executive Committee while the Republic investigated Fiesta Bowl corruption.  Now it appears that the lapse will literally be part of a textbooks case on ethical lapses.

Here's a blog post by Cronkite Ethics Professor Tim McGuire.  First, here's a bit about McGuire

Tim McGuire, 62, is the Frank Russell Chair for the business of journalism at Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication. As the Russell Chair, McGuire focuses on providing courses on ethics and on the business components of journalism including operations, emerging media, corporate responsibility and the future of media.

Under the headline: "Arizona Republic gets an A+ for reporting, B for its editorial and an F for publisher’s conflict"

McGuire goes on to provide this analysis: (All of the following words are his.)

"As the headline above says, the Republic reporters deserve an A+, the editorial board gets a solid B, but the publisher of the Republic, John Zidich gets a F for an outrageous conflict of interest. Zidich is on the executive committee board of the Fiesta Bowl.

One prominent Arizona blogger blasted Zidich and even alleges the Junker took a fall because of Zidich’s involvemblent on the executive committee. I disagree with that. Junker took a fall because he thought he was “entitled” but Zidich’s involvement is a profound embarrassment.

His attempt at transparency in Wednesday’s paper is incredibly weak. He said:

"When I decided to go on the executive committee in 2010, I did it for one reason. That was to make sure that what we were hearing about in the community, and on the pages of our newspaper, about possible problems, was dealt with with completeness and transparency.

"I realize in my position that there could be an appearance of conflict between coverage and my involvement, but quite frankly this bowl means too much to the community. (I wanted to) make sure that whatever its future is, is a bright one. The only way to do that is to be involved."

It must be noted I just lifted that quote from The Espresso Pundit because at 12:38 p.m Tuesday I have scoured the online version of the Republic story and I cannot find the Zidich statement that appears in the morning newspaper. It appears (emphasis on appears) it has been removed from the story. So much for completeness and transparency. That may well be a sign someone is reconsidering Zidich’s comments. 

Zidich has committed a gigantic sin even if he claims in the report that he distanced himself from the story which he did on page 71 of the report I found online.

I can find no direct evidence that Zidich’s involvement affected the Republic story. On its face the coverage seems very aggressive, but Zidich’s involvement has to make the public wonder if they are getting a sanitized version. And that doesn’t even mention the way the staff has to be looking over its shoulder.

In my ethics class I constantly rail against the “my heart is pure as driven snow” argument. I may think I can’t be unduly influenced but I don’t get to decide what is a conflict. If it appears to others there is a conflict, there is. Zidich’s heart may well be a pure as the driven snow, but that is never the test.

John Zidich should quit the Executive Committee of the Fiesta Bowl today or quit The Republic. When the Fiesta Bowl board  was an important Valley booster of a great event, his involvement should have been questioned. Now that the Fiesta Bowl is mired in a corruption scandal that is going to play out publicly and painfully, he cannot hold both jobs.

I would like to think Zidich’s bosses at Gannett are taking a strong stand today on his blatant conflict of interest, but after reading of the appointment of a notorious political boss to the editorial board of Gannett’s New Jersey Courier Post that is probably wishful thinking."

One Jacket, Two Hats....Many Conflicts.

On Monday I pointed out that the Fiesta Bowl story was coming to a head and that CEO John Junker would be the fall guy.  The premise of my post was that Republic Reporter Craig Harris' stories had focused on Junker and ignored the responsibilities of the Board.  I pointed out that Harris' ultimate boss--Republic Publisher John Zidich--was an officer on the Fiesta Bowl Board while Harris was writing his stories.  Harris' stories then ignored the Board and focused on Junker. 

The report was released on Tuesday and Junker was indeed the fall guy.  In today's Republic, Dennis Wagner and Craig Harris address the Board issue head on. 

A Fiesta Bowl report describing corruption and inappropriate spending focuses on top executives. But the extent of wrongdoing it describes also raises questions about whether directors of the non-profit organization failed in their watchdog role.

The article makes it clear that the Board was at best incompetent and at worst, participated in the cover up.  The article touches on Zidich's roll, but Zidich's explanation makes no sense.

"When I decided to go on the executive committee in 2010, I did it for one reason. That was to make sure that what we were hearing about in the community, and on the pages of our newspaper, about possible problems, was dealt with with completeness and transparency.

"I realize in my position that there could be an appearance of conflict between coverage and my involvement, but quite frankly this bowl means too much to the community. (I wanted to) make sure that whatever its future is, is a bright one. The only way to do that is to be involved."

Really?  Zidich went on the Executive Committee to make sure that the investigation was more complete? Does Zidich expect us to believe that after he found out his paper was investigating credible charges of illegality and corruption at the Fiesta Bowl, he not only remained on the Board, but accepted a position on the Executive Committee--in order to increase transparency?  That makes no sense.

Zidich's claim that he accepted a position on the Executive Committee is even more ridiculous in the context of the entire article. The whole article is about how the investigation was botched.  Wagner and Harris point out that the investigative report details that:

...the inquiry was fraught with shortcomings and suggests it was manipulated to fend off a government investigation.

So Zidich is claiming that he accepted an Executive Position on the Board in order to make sure the investigation was complete--but the final report points out that the initial investigation was botched so badly that it looks like it was part of a cover up?

The claim also doesn't jibe with what Zidich told the investigators.  Here's the report at page 79.

]ohn Zidich, publisher of The Arizona Republic and also a member of the Fiesta Bowl Board, said he received a "heads up" from someone at the paper shortly before the article was published but that he had never heard of the allegations in the article before then. Zidich said he had a conversation with Junker around the time that the article was to be published in which Zidich told Junker that if there was anything unusual, it needed to come out."According to Zidich, Junker did not react to Zidich's comment.

That's it?  He moved into an officer position in order to promote transparency and he had one conversation with Junker?

After the story gained momentum,  Zidich was clearly--and rightly--concerned about the obvious conflict of serving as an Executive Officer of the Board while also serving as Publisher of the Republic at a time when the Republic was investigating the Fiesta Bowl.  Here's what Zidich told the investigators:

Zidich said he has made it clear to The Arizona Republic editor, Randy Lovely, that because of his position on the Fiesta Bowl Board, he would not be involved in any news articles or editorials regarding the Fiesta Bowl. Zidich noted that he has not influenced Harris' stories, as should be clear from the fact that Harris has continued to write articles about the Fiesta Bowl, even though Zidich remains on the Board.

Think about that statement for a second.  Zidich's evidence that reporter Craig Harris WASN"T infuenced by Zidich is that Harris continued to investigate.  But Zidich claimes that he accepted the Executive Committee slot in order to FURTHER the investigation.  Zidich's claim that he accepted the Executive Committee position in order to ensure transparancy falls appart under even the mildest scrutiny.

But what about Zidich's claim that he didn't influence Harris?  I have no reason to doubt Zidich's claim that he didn't contact Harris or otherwise overtly influence the coverage.  He didn't have to make any phone calls.  After all, Harris is investigating an organization and his boss is on the Board of that organization.  Harris chose to go after Junker and ignored the shortcomings of the Board.  It didn't take a call from John Zidich to make that happen. It's the natural result of Zidich's dual role. 

In the most favorable light, Zidich botched his roll as a Board Officer and failed to detect the corruption at the Fiesta Bowl.  His presence on the Board--despite the obvious conflict--skewed the coverage away from the Board and caused the coverage to focus on Junker.

At worst, Zidich was part of the Board's initial attempt to whitewash and cover up the allegations. 

Why would Zidich participate in the cover up?  Why didn't he resign from the Board as soon as he found out about the Republic investigation?  Zidich himself has given us a clue.

"I realize in my position that there could be an appearance of conflict between coverage and my involvement, but quite frankly this bowl means too much to the community. (I wanted to) make sure that whatever its future is, is a bright one. The only way to do that is to be involved."

"The only way to do that was to be involved.."  But involved in what...the investigation?  Or the cover up?

Pure B(C)S

Looks like Fiesta Bowl CEO John Junker is in serious trouble.  The Republic broke the story of allegations that Fiesta Bowl employees have taken excessive salaries and been encouraged to make political donations. The paper has raised questions about Junker's nearly $600,000 salary and questioned a loan that allowed him to join a country club. 

The story is starting to accelerate and my guess is that we are going to see major action against Junker in the next few weeks---but something doesn't smell right. 

Here's the first line of the October 2010 story that first brought the issue to light.

The Fiesta Bowl, in a reversal, has appointed a special committee to investigate whether employees were reimbursed for making political campaign contributions - a felony.

Isn't that a bit strange?  Did the "Fiesta Bowl" make a decision?  Surely, it was the Board of the Fiesta Bowl that made the decision to investigate the Fiesta Bowl CEO and former employees. 

And what about the allegations of Junker's excessive salary?  Did Junker approve his own salary--or was it the Board?  Did Junker approve his own loan--or was it the Board? 

The heart of the story is that Fiesta Bowl employees were encouraged to make political contributions and were then reimbursed. The implication of the story is that it was Junker who was doing the encouraging and reimbursing.  But is Junker in charge of salaries, or is that a Board decision?  Is Junker the only one who contributes to candidates, or do Board members contribute as well?  How many of these fundraisers were sponsored by Board Members?

The story is strange because Republic reporter Craig Harris seems to have intentionally concentrated his fire exclusively on Junker.  His use of the awkward expression "The Fiesta Bowl decided..." indicates that he is working hard not to mention the Board.  Harris's ignoring of obvious facts about Board involvement in Junker's salary and loan are odd considering that reporters--like prosecutors--want to investigate their way to the top of the decision tree.  

Junker's press has been so bad and the Board's press has been so good that I wonder if there's something going on--some behind the scenes powerful force that deflects light away from the Board toward Junker...

To his credit, Republic reporter Craig Harris gave us a clue as to why his story is so awkwardly written...why the investigation stops at Junker and why the Board involvement is not explored.  Here's a disclaimer at the bottom of one of the articles.

The Arizona Republic has been a longtime sponsor of the Fiesta Bowl. Republic President and Publisher John Zidich is on the bowl's board.

Indeed, here the link to the Fiesta Bowl site.

Here's a screen shot from the Fiesta Bowl website.  Zidich isn't just "on" the Board, he's an officer on the Board.  As Board Secretary, one would assume that Zidich takes his fiduciary duty seriously and keeps himself informed about Board actions. 

This conflict raises a host of questions.

Did Zidich vote to approve the salary and loan? Could any of his actions have been construed as encouraging employees to make political contributions?  Did Zidich approve reimbursements?

Why is Zidich still on the Board? Reporter Craig Harris acknowledged Zidich's conflict, but that can't excuse the fact that the Arizona Republic is investigating the Fiesta Bowl, while the Republic Publisher sits on the Fiesta Bowl Board.

How much has Zidich's presence skewed the coverage?  Is Junker facing serious charges because the reporter was afraid to make his boss look bad?

Or worse, could Zidich--in a pure Machiavellian move--have directed Harris to focus on Junker?

The bottom line is that the Publisher of the Republic serves on the Board of an organization that is being investigated by the Republic.  Furthermore, the Republic's coverage has stayed clear of the Board and focused (rather awkwardly) on Junker--despite that fact that many of Junker's actions required Board approval. 

What did John Zidich know and when did he know it?  How has he influenced the coverage?  How has the coverage influenced the criminal investigation--after all, it appears that the criminal investigation has followed the same path as the newspaper coverage..

I'm sure that most of this will come out in the depositions--after all, Junker will obviously sue and claim that the Republic targeted him in an effort to deflect attention from the Publisher.

Why is Zidich still on the Fiesta Bowl Board? Don't they have lawyers at the Republic?  Even if the Republic chooses to ignore the ethical implications of this conflict, the paper's lawyers can't let Zidich ignore the legal implications.

Zidich needs to resign from the Board and then he and the Republic need to lawyer up.  There's  a blitz coming.

It's Over

I've been holding off any major Bundgaard posts.  On March 7th, I wrote a post called "Take a Deep Breath" in which I pointed out the Legislative Democrats have no credibility on the Bundgaard case because they've ignored Representative Daniel Patterson's transgressions. 

While I suggested that we need to wait for the final police report, I pointed out some obvious facts.   I predicted that Bundgaard would lose his Majority leader seat--which happened about a week later.  I pointed out the obvious fact that his Congressional aspirations are over.  And I predicted that Bundgaard wouldn't be re-elected to the Senate because Jack Harper would take him out. 

Well, two facts were released today that make it unlikely that Bundgaard will even finish his current term.  The Republic is reporting that the police are recommending that he be charged with assault.

That's certainly fatal to Bundgaard's career, but he might be able to finish his current term if he gets charged. 

However, this report from a witness will get Bundgaard kicked out of the Senate.

Also in the report, a witness told officers she saw a male trying to pull somebody out of the passenger side of the vehicle.  "She said, 'He was beatin' the living crap out of whoever was in the passenger seat'," the report says.

So far, it's been "he said/she said".  Bundgaard has been described as a victim; he's changed his story half a dozen times; he's claimed that Ballard was reaching for a gun and his caucus has been taking a wait and see attitude. 

Now we have a witness who reports that Bundgaard was "beating the living crap" out of Ballard.  It's over. The witness report conflicts with Bundgaard's stories.  He asked the caucus to hold off judgment and he has made fools of them.  Naturally all of the Democrats would vote to remove him from office.  It's likely that 11 Republicans would round out the two thirds of the Senate that it takes to remove him.  And no Republican is going to defend him once it's clear that he's going to be removed...so it's going to be nearly unanimous...which means he either resigns or forces the caucus to vote him out.  The former would be smarter, but seeing how this thing has been handled, I would gamble on the latter. 

The caucus will act quickly.  After all, the last lesson is still fresh--the Republican caucus eventually removed Bundgaard from his Majority Leader post, but they waited until they had been pummelled for weeks.  There's no sense in supporting Bundgaard for a few more weeks only to decide to remove him later. 

If he has any class at all, he will poll the caucus today and clean out his office over the weekend. 

But that's the key question isn't it...does Scott have any class at all?  

Goodbye Maryjane

Medical marijuana is supposed to be some sort of multi-million dollar new industry.  Investors are putting millions of dollars into dispensories and the supply chains that lead to them.  I don't know what these guys are smoking (well, actually, I do) but I don't think they understand the risk that they are taking.

"Medical" marijuana violates federal law--and that case has gone all the way to the United States Supreme Court.  No matter what you think of the Commerce Clause or the Supremacy Clause, the issue is over.   States are not allowed to establish their own medical marijuana programs. 

So why do these programs exist?  Because the Obama Administration has chosen not to enforce the federal law that makes medical marijuana illegal.  We can argue about the dubious legality of the President's decision not to enforce the law, but for the sake of argument, let me concede that "prosecutorial discretion" gives the President a pass on this one.

What happens in two years?  Do you think that a Republican administration is going to continue Obama's moratorium on enforcement?  Would you bet a million dollars on it?  Would you get a license, build a dispensary, create a supply chain and retain a host of lawyers on the off chance that you will be in business for more than a year or so?  Even the Payday lenders had ten years. 

Sure, Obama could get re-elected.  Or a Republican administration could decide to let all those folks trying to "prevent glaoucoma" keep toking up.  Or the entire plan could go up in smoke when the grownups move back to Washington.  I'm betting on the latter.

 

Obama Sighed...Men Died

The lead story in today's Wall Street Journal is headlined "Allies Strain to Mend Split."  Dude, this is like the first week.  Golly, this coalition building to invade another country is harder than it looks.  I'm still waiting for the hard left, MoveOn crowd to acknowledge that they have been completely conned.  Obama's foreign policy is the same a Bush's.  There's less reason to invade Libya than there was to invade Iraq...we have less international support and less Congressional support.

The only difference between the Bush foreign policy and the Obama foreign policy is that Bush was actually competent.  So is the left finally going to renounce the Bush Lied Men Died, Mission Accomplished, Imperial Presidency, Valerie Plame Derangement Syndrome?  Are they going to admit that the world is a complex place and America is indeed the world's policeman?  Do they realize--as Obama has come to realize--that there are bad people out there and you can't win them over by apologizing?

I will be the first to say that I support what Obama is trying to do.  He's not doing it very well, but he's standing up to evil and I respect that.  I've been to Zimbabwe and I can tell you that the people are being crushed by Robert Mugabe.  If I were in charge, you would see a lot more dictators on the run.  I guess I'm kind of imperial that way. So I support the President's efforts in Libya.  I support his continued use of Drones in Afghanistan.   Indeed, I support his decision to escalate the drone attacks by targetingUS Citizens in Afghanistan who embrace terrorism.  I support his continuted efforts to extend freedom in Iraq.  I support his decision to keep Guantanamo open.  I support his continued use of military tribunals and "warantless" wiretaps.

I knew that History would ratify the wisdom of the Bush Doctrine...I just didn't know it would be so soon.

Post Script

The newspaper accounts all mention that Gadhafi abandoned his WMD program, renounced terrorism, joined the international community and established diplomatic relations.  They all point out that he had this turn around occurred in March of 2003. Very few of the articles point out that Gadhafi's change of heart occurred about 10 days after we invaded Iraq. 

In which I defend Kyrsten Sinema...

Last week Governor Brewer was scheduled to speak at a Chamber Lunch at the Capitol, but wasn't able to be heard over the protesters, so she just mingled with the guests and then went back to her office.

The group that organized the protest has posted a video and takes special pride in mocking Kyrsten Sinema for having security with her when she attended the lunch.   Do these clowns really expect State Senators to walk the gauntlet of bullhorns without security?  Should they just ignore the "Pearce=Hitler" signs and just assume that no one in the crowd is violent? 

Jared Laughner got off 32 shots in 15 seconds and we have no zone of security around our elected officials.  The era of Legislators, the Attorney General and the Governor weaving their way through the screaming crowd ended on January 8th.

When protesters disrupted the World Trade Talks, officials set up "protest zones"--areas in which protesters could be heard, but couldn't intimidate or interfere with the officials.  This was a good compromise that provided security for trade officials and conference participants and still allowed protesters to shout their message. 

Russell Pearce and Kirk Adams need to fence in the grassy area just east of the House and confine protesters to that area.  They will still be close to the action and no one is going to have any trouble hearing them.  However, they won't be able to mob legislators or visitors.  People will be able to get from their cars to the building without running the gauntlet and there won't be any broken necks if someone steps on Ron Gould's foot. 

Senator Sinema shouldn't have to bring a DPS guard to lunch and she shouldn't be mocked for having to do so.  Pearce and Adams are in charge of ensuring the safety of those who work at and visit the Capitol--while still providing an outlet for those who wish to protest.  So put up a fence.  It will be a one day story, but it's the right thing to do. 

Breaking the Code

Capital Times has a cover story that points out something I mentioned months ago.  District 14 and 15 are going to be combined and District 17 is going to expand.  I went on to point out the implications...Sinema will be defeated by Meza and Shapira will be defeated by a Republican from one of the surrounding districts. 

Both of them will consider running for Congress, but that's not going to work.  Most people do not understand that we redistrict entirely by race.  The general public doesn't understand this because it's always mentioned in code such as "compliance with Justice Department criteria."  That means maximizing the number of districts that can be won by racial minorities.  That means there will be no new District that can be won by a white Democrat. 

If Gabby runs again, she will win, but if she doesn't, Arizona's congressional delegation will consist of 6 white Republican men and 3 Hispanic Democratic men. 

 

What does is Say about Pearce....?

The media has been making much of the fact that the Immigration bills failed in the Senate.  But no one seems to understand what it really means.  Folks seem to think that it's a rejection of Pearce or that his power is somehow diminished.  Really?

Think about it.  Senate Presidents have the power to get their priorities enacted.  They can hold other members' bills, cajole caucus members, trade members for their priorities and even shut down the entire process until the President's own legislation is approved.  None of that happened and the immigration bills failed.

When Pearce was elected Senate President he said he would not use the power of his office to force the passage of immigration bills.  The caucus made it clear that they wanted the Senate to focus on bills other than immigration.

And that's exactly what happened.

Just Curious...

I'm wondering if there's any aspect of the Bush Doctrine that hasn't been ratified by the Obama Administration...Guantanamo, Killer Drones, signing statements, the Surge, Afghanistan, wiretaps and now the attack on Libya. 

Will the left find a way to distinguish Libya from Iraq?  Saddam's behavior was worse both domestically and abroad.  The coalition that supported the second Iraq war was broader than the one supporting our war on Libya.  Bush sought more Congressional involvement than Obama did.

The only difference I can think of us that Bush was actually more competent.