Tag: justice

AZ ethics chair finds no violation by Ugenti in SB 1454

See-hear-speak no evil
See-hear-speak no evil

In response to my petition[1] to the AZ Speaker of the House and House Ethics Committee to bring disciplinary action against Rep. Ugenti, I received a short, late evening response from the Ethics Committee Chair, Rep. Lovas.  The terse response amounted to “the act of offering an amendment on the floor does not rise to the level of disorderly behavior for purposes of Ethics Committee jurisdiction. . . . The Ethics Committee will not be taking the matter up further.”  This was a strict interpretation of the meaning of ethics, which under the House Rules deals only with financial issues. It says that a violation of the Arizona Constitution by an elected official is not an ethical concern.

Where ethical restraint is lacking, there can be no hope of overcoming problems. (The Dalai Lama).

 

Very much disappointed in Rep. Lovas’ response, I replied in a little more detail.

 

Rep. Lovas,

I appreciate your late evening response to my emails seeking disciplinary action against Rep. Ugenti for her conduct in submitting her waning hours amendment to SB 1454. The strict interpretation of the committee’s jurisdiction holding that Ugenti’s conduct was not “disorderly behavior for purposes of Ethics Committee jurisdiction” is disturbing. How can a violation of the law by an elected representative, a legislator, not be viewed as unethical? The bill with Ugenti’s amendment was stipulated by the Legislature (per paragraph 22 of the Stipulation) to have violated the Arizona Constitution’s prohibition against bills with more than one subject. And the court so invalidated her additions.

I am disappointed in your response. You treat this incident as “just another day at the office” and this is the way the Legislature works. That if a legislator can violate Section 13 of the Arizona Constitution, so be it. And if caught in doing so and a court invalidates the effects of the legislator’s actions, the attitude of the Ethics Committee seems to be, Oh well. The legislation is invalid. Let’s move on to next year. It smells of, if you can get away with it, good. If not, don’t worry since we will take no action.

 (I am well aware of Randall Gnant’s comments in his guide for the public, From Idea . . . To Bill . . . To Law, p. 51-52, on the not infrequent disregard of constitutionality of legislation by the Legislature).

I do not understand how Ugenti’s actions do not constitute grossly unethical conduct. It sends the message that, yes, this is the way it is. That the Legislature, as sovereign of the State of Arizona, can do no wrong. Sorry, I cannot accept that “this is the way it is.” The people have a “social contract” with the State of Arizona government that binds both parties, which, by your decision, shows that the Committee has chosen to ignore its duties and responsibilities under that contract, the Arizona Constitution.

I understand that much of what I had described in my case for disciplinary action is considered as that’s the way legislation is accomplished, that’s the way the legislature works.[2] Nothing wrong. However, in your response you categorize and restrict Ugenti’s action as a simple filing of an amendment. You mention nothing about the bill was her third and last ditch attempt to get it passed into law. Or that it was in violation of the Constitution and House Rule 16(D), which prohibits any such bill. House Rule 1 says that a violation of these rules can result in disciplinary action and even the expulsion of a legislator. You trivialized the entire incident.

Let us understand the gravity of Ugenti’s knowing and planned violation of the constitution. In the late 1930s President Roosevelt attempted to get legislation passed to pack the US Supreme Court in order to accomplish goals that he believed were for the good of the people — not the party, not the special interests. He was opposed by the US Senate that believed that the President was tampering with the balance of the separation of powers, which was not good for the country. In this incident, no laws were broken and no rules were violated in spite of the overwhelming controversy and seriousness of the legislation.

 More recently, the US Supreme Court in its Kelo decision found justification for interpreting “public purpose” the same as having the eminent domain meaning as “public use.” No laws and no procedures or rules were broken. All was legit and was viewed as in the best interest of the country. But, sadly, not with SB 1454. Not only was a Rule broken, but the Arizona Constitution as well. And the evidence I put forth shows the heavy hand of special interests, the HOA “stakeholder” cabal. (There is more that I have not yet released). Yet, no evil is seen by the Ethics Committee and that no investigation into the affair is warranted. What message does this send to the people of Arizona? What does it say about the State of Arizona?

 I cannot stress the need for action by the Ethics Committee to restore the faith and confidence in the Arizona Legislature. I ask that the committee take whatever action is appropriate and necessary for the House to commence disciplinary charges per House Rule 1. Ugenti must not be given a clean bill of health, a pass, a walk to try again another time. Disciplinary action will also serve as a deterrent to other so inclined legislators.

Please urge the Speaker to undertake disciplinary action on behalf the people, for the good of Arizona.

 

George K. Staropoli

 

Organize, organize, organize, but organize your local HOA

I’ve come to realize that we, including yours truly, have gone about this national association all wrong.  The vast majority of HOA members have grievances against their own HOA and some reach out to broader issues like rights and constitutional protections only in regard to their personal HOA problem.  That is the chief reason for failing to organize at a state or national level. So, let’s face reality and deal with it.

My initial thoughts take me to [My Association] Council of HOA Members that functions in opposition to the board as a true member organization, as a shadow government with certain legal rights.  It would be free of director/officer obligations under state laws and the CC&Rs that favor the HOA board.  HOA directors or officers are not accepted as members. Think in terms of the HOA being a business corporation, like we are being told that they are, and the Council would be equivalent to the member organization in contrast to  management.

They would have legally protected rights to organize, negotiate living conditions (affecting the governing documents, and to propose its own governing document amendments that must be put forth for a vote of all the members. These protections are necessary to get around the HOA attorneys’ “working with the new laws” advice that is designed to avoid the intent of the law – finding loopholes in other words.  It would serve as a check on the abuses of HOA boards.

The HOA could not legally interfere with campaigning for elections or on issues, or with the right to hold meetings on and within HOA facilities, or with the use of the HOA membership lists, etc.  And most importantly, in the event it gets corrupted, the Council can be dissolved by a 2/3 vote without the 20 or 30 year wait period found in the CC&Rs. But the members must stand up and act under the protection of the required new legislation, which must address retaliation against Council supporters.

Of course, legislation would be needed, as was needed to protect workers in the 1930s.  You can call it unionization or the establishment of an HOA “political party.” These Councils would fit the bill.  Of course, a broader state organization would be needed to provide guidance and assistance to the councils – can’t have them running amuck because they do not understand what must be done in order to accomplish their agendas. 

SB 1454: Machiavelli at work in the AZ legislature – Part 2

Part 2 – UPL violations and “HOAS” in the title.

(See Part 1).

E.         Sanctions against HOA managers violating UPL

In spite of several emails sent to Rep. Ugenti, the Senate GE members, and the public in general there was no mention in the public hearings about the actions taken by the Arizona Supreme Court document preparer board in 2012 regarding the unauthorized practice of law, Supreme Court Rule 31). (See Arizona’s HB 2371 empowers unlicensed HOA property managers to avoid UPL).  I refer to the State Bar UPL Advisory Opinion, 12-01 and the decision holding AAM, a AACM and CAI member, to have repeatedly violated UPL.  (Supreme Court Board of Legal Document Preparers v. AAM, LDP-NFC-09-L094 and LDP-NFC-10-L026). Rather than seek remedial legislation SB1454 and HB 2371 sought to exempt HOA managers from UPL.

The illusion and appearance that all is well and that no stakeholder or legislator was aware of these actions was successful. 

 

F.         Arizona Capitol Times showing “HOAS” in SB 1454 short title

Finally, the weekly Arizona Capitol Times (ACT) covers goings on at the capitol and produces an online LOLA Report listing the short and long titles of all the bills. Its LOLA shows “HOAS” in the short tile of SB 1454. It states that the info is taken “from Arizona Capitol Reports reporters and records and from state and other databases. Bill-tracking information is updated continuously during legislative sessions.”   But, the official ALIS public access to legislative bill information does not show a short title with “HOAS.”   Who, when, and how was “HOAS” removed from the short title?  And why was it removed?  Surely ACT had no motive to change ALIS to add “HOAS”, and would not dare to do so.

Curiously, the AACM website under Legislative Update shows the same short title as from LOLA, as AACM states that’s where it got the info.  Why wasn’t this called to Ugenti’s attention, or did nobody notice?  Yet, there’s an addendum tacked on to the title, in all caps, “AS SIGNED BY GOVERNOR,” which could only come on June 20th or later with still no correction to reflect the official ALIS version.  Why not?

It has come to my attention that Jeff Sandquist, AACM lobbyist, explained that the state’s position for settling the constitutionality lawsuit was because it wanted to save portions of the bill that it thought was more important.  He seems to be aware that if the court declared the entire bill unconstitutional the initial SB 1454 provisions dealing with Elections would also be invalidated. However, by leaving off “HOAS” in the title the State could argue, if indeed the “plot” was discovered, as it was, that only the second part of Section 13 of the Constitution applied. This would only invalidate the HOA provisions. And so it happened. 

Was this the plan for removing “HOAS”?  Was this the plan for getting Senator Yee’s approval for attaching HB 2371 to her bill, SB 1454?  That her original bill would survive? Recall that Rep. Olson apparently didn’t approve of the Griffin attempt to add HB 2371 to his bill, HB 2518, and it died.

So I argue SB1454 was rushed through in the final hours of the night on the last day of the session, in the midst of attention focused on the budget and Medicare issues. The session ended just before 1:00 AM on the 14th.

“The founders understood that the principal mission of government was to secure people in their natural rights — to protect them against the lawless private thugs as well as of ill-intentioned legislators.” (“Machiavelli and America,” Hadley Arkes, p. 145, The Prince (Yale University Press, 1999)).

The arguments and events presented here make a case for a frustrated Rep. Ugenti who, in an act of desperation, intentionally violated the Arizona Constitution and House Rule 16(D).  The Legislature cannot sit idly by and allow a flagrant violation of the Arizona Constitution to go unpunished. It must send a message that such ardent belief in a bill does not allow for the law to be broken and that the end does not justify the means. 

I have urged the Arizona Speaker of the House and House Ethics Committee to bring disciplinary charges against Rep. Ugenti and to seek her expulsion under House Rule 1. Many questions remain unanswered.

HOA Justice and Reconciliation Commissions

The overall mission of the HOA Enlightenment Movement is simply to get the word out about the reality of living in an HOA.[i]  The continuing wounds inflicted on homeowners must be accounted for. Wounds that have been inflicted by rogue[ii] HOA boards supported by the indifference or pro-HOA bias of state legislators, by the “not my problem” attitude of the “good” HOAs who stand by and allow evil in their industry, and by the failure of the national educational trade group, CAI,  to help clean up the industry.

In the interest of justice and reconciliation, a vehicle such as a Truth and Reconciliation Commission[iii] is needed to heal the wounds so our communities and society can return to the principles and basic values of America. A simple “let’s start over again” or “let us be friends” kumbaya approach will not work, nor will the continued failure to hold the offenders accountable for their actions.  Homeowners have suffered financially, legally and emotionally, and closure and justice is warranted. 

The Commission would grant amnesty to offenders and violators of the governing documents and laws who caused such harms, if the offenders could show that they were acting under orders.  As occurred in the 2008 Florida HOA hearings held by Julio Robaina,[iv] the homeowner witnesses’ would confront the offenders.  The offenders would include directors, officers, managers, and HOA attorneys. 

This type of commission with powers to file suit against offenders, who cannot show that they were just following orders, can only be established through state legislation. Advocates can enlighten the media, the state legislators, homeowners, and the public in general to demand the rapid creation of such committees within their respective states.

  

References

[i] By “HOA” I am referring to that category of subdivision with a purpose to create an “an adult community” (retirement) or a resort community where owners happen to live similarly to a vacation home resort. I am speaking of those subdivisions that would be classified as a home with some or no amenities, or not even any common properties. In the former instance rules are expected and in the latter the rules are intrusive.

[ii] By “rogue” I mean those boards that have been repeatedly and intentionally grossly negligent of or have ignored their duties and obligations under state laws and the governing documents.  They do so with the knowledge that there are no meaningful penalties for such egregious conduct.

[iii]  The HOA version of this commission is based on the “Welcome to the official Truth and Reconciliation Commission Website,” http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/, August 21, 2013.

HOAs & state legislatures: rule by the Prince or by the Constitution?

“Where ethical restraint is lacking, there can be no hope of overcoming problems.”[1]

With the banishment of God from government, our “unalienable” rights, which were held by the Founding Fathers to be superior to any rights granted by any government, have been declared null and void by the US Supreme Court. With no substitute standard being announced by the Supremes to guide the people, they are left to flounder. And we have floundered.[2]

In his commentary on Machiavelli’s The Prince,[3] William B. Allen provides Machiavelli’s view of politicians,

Once the obligation to act according to natural or devine standards is removed, the question that remains . . . is how to participate in the management of political appearances to secure their [the politicians’] own interests.[4]

For Machiavelli “the role of morals in politics is mainly to cultivate illusions . . . politics is merely appearance and morality is merely pretense.”[5] 

Understandably, it is not surprising that the Supremes have held that all legislation is presumed to be constitutional, placing the burden on the people to prove the unconstitutionality of a law.  With this legal doctrine, the Supremes, the 9 Men In Black, have declared that “the sovereign can do no wrong.”  But, that is not the fundamental basis of our system of government with its separation of powers, checks and balances, and Bill of Rights.  The Supremes just abdicated their function under the Constitution.  In its place, it has assigned the role of the Protector of the Constitution to the people, the average person. 

Consistent with this doctrine, the Arizona Legislature also presumes all statutes to be constitutional, perhaps because the Legislature provides checks on the constitutionality of a bill before it can be sent to the Governor for signing. (The Arizona Constitution also provides a check on statute constitutionality before signing by the Governor).

However, in spite of statements to the contrary found in the Arizona State Legislature guides for the public, the legislature and individual legislators have failed to protect the people against the violations of the Arizona Constitution as in the case of the unconstitutional SB1454. They have ignored their duties, obligations and rules for the proper functioning of the Legislative Council and the Rules Committee. (See HOA reforms, SB 1454 and the inner workings of the legislature).

In contrast to Machiavelli’s principles of government, Hadley Arkes reminds us that

The founders understood that the principal mission of government was to secure people in their natural rights — to protect them against the lawless private thugs as well as of ill-intentioned legislators (emphasis added).[6]

He quotes US Justice Wilson’s (1798) warning that

The people in sovereign office might well perform unjustified and therefore lawless acts . . . such acts, though vested with ‘legal’ authority could not fully claim nor elicit from the people an obligation to obey.[7]

 

In regard to the HOA amendments surreptitiously placed into SB 1454, Arizona has dropped the ball.  Arizona has fallen off the pedestal.

 

References

[1] Ethics for the New Millennium, His Holiness The Dalai Lama, p. 26, Riverhead Books, 1999.

[2]God is dead, and so, too, are our unalienable rights, HOA Constitutional Government, February 5, 2008

[3] The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli, Yale University, 1997.

[4] Id., Machiavelli and Modernity, W. B. Allen, p. 108.

[5] Id., p. 104.

[6] Supra n 3, Machiavelli and America, Hadley Arkes, p. 145.

[7] Id., p. 128.