The City of Glendale’s Proposition 499, the “Hotel and Event Center Minimum Wage and Wage Protection Act,” was soundly defeated on Election Day. The defeat was a rebuke to Worker Power, a California special interest group seeking “economic justice and the preservation of democracy.” Prop 499 was met with staunch opposition in Glendale from the coalition “Save Glendale Jobs,” funded by hospitality industry leaders and supported by three Glendale Councilmembers Lauren Tolmachoff, Joyce Clark, and Vice Mayor Ian Hugh.
The ballot measure would have mandated “hotel and event center workers receive a $20.00 per hour minimum wage (increases annually), service charge payments and premium pay to be enforced by a newly created city department of labor responsible for investigating employer violations involving payment of wages, reporting, recordkeeping, and overtime requirements.”
Hotel developer Chris DeRose, president of CivicGroup LLC, a firm seeking to bring a LivSmart by Hilton Hotel to downtown Glendale, was joined on a conference call prior to the vote by Clark, Hughe, Tolmachoff and Councilmember-elect Dianna Guzman. DeRose explained the serious problems that the proposition would cause for the burgeoning West Valley City, deep in an extended project of downtown revitalization as well as business owners.
“We’re in the process of taking that out to capital. Then we get a proposition that gets ballot access that threatens to upend all of our economic modeling and throw uncertainty into the whole project,” DeRose explained.
“Unfortunately, that’s frozen us in our tracks because whether you’re talking to a bank or you’re talking to investors, they want to know, ‘Hey, what’s the labor cost here?’ For a hotel, your number 1 expense, especially in a limited-service model where you don’t have F&B, it’s salary for staff. And so, this proposition has created uncertainty, and we’re not able to answer those very basic questions right now. And as a result, we’re not able to move the project forward.”
He added that the proposition appeared to be a “Trojan horse.”
“What’s really unusual about this, it’s a minimum wage that’s really – it’s a proposition that is disguised as a minimum wage. The minimum wage part is the Trojan horse.”
“The problem is that there’s actually a cap on productivity and that is unprecedented. I don’t know of another jurisdiction in America where you have a cap on productivity and in this case it’s 3,500 square feet, which is about 10 hotel rooms.”
Councilmember Clark noted the serious impact the proposal could have had on Glendale’s competitiveness in attracting businesses saying, “I think it’s important to note that Glendale will be the only city in the state to mandate $20 an hour. And overtime, it’s more than that. It’s $40 an hour, which people are not paying attention to. It puts Glendale at a competitive disadvantage with every city in the state and the Common Sense Institute says that it may cost Glendale anywhere from a million dollars on up annually just to regulate this and in lost revenue from other projects that may have considered locating in Glendale.”
Councilmember Tolmachoff expressed concerns about navigating the regulatory mandate the city would be required to assume saying, “To put the city in a position to be a regulatory authority and to have to intervene and interact between a civil disagreement between an employee and an employer is absolutely no place for a city to be.”
Save Glendale Jobs Chair Kim Grace Sabow said in a statement after the proposition’s defeat:
“I extend my sincere appreciation to Glendale voters, who chose to preserve and protect the jobs our industry creates. I want to thank the many supporters of our effort, without whom this result would not have been possible, including key business leaders, elected officials, and law enforcement. I also want to thank our dedicated campaign team, which expertly managed every aspect of this campaign, and our volunteers, who spread the word across the city about how damaging this measure would be. Together, we formed a mighty coalition.
“I am thrilled for Glendale, which I am certain will not only continue to grow and create more outstanding destinations, attractions, and experiences for visitors but will also continue to deliver more great jobs and career opportunities for Glendale residents.”
According to Maricopa County Elections, the proposition was defeated by 15.32 pts., or approximately 10,338 votes as of this report.
Top financial officers from 17 states, 13 State Treasurers, one Commissioner of Revenue, and three state auditors, came together to issue a firm rebuke to members of Congress calling upon Fortune 1000 companies to “reaffirm their commitments to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI).”
The letter, signed by Arizona Treasurer Kimberly Yee, stated, “We the undersigned are state financial officials responsible for state investment vehicles that hold ownership positions in your companies. We write concerning recent calls from Congressional members that your companies reaffirm their commitments to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). They commend DEI to you, claiming it is ‘good for business’ and ‘benefits employees, customers, and the bottom line.’ Significant evidence is mounting that precisely the opposite is true.”
DEI polices don’t prioritize the financial health or performance of a company. That’s why 17 state financial officers pushed back on woke Congressional members by encouraging Fortune 1,000 companies to remove DEI policies from their businesses.
— Arizona Treasurer Kimberly Yee (@AZTreasurerYee) October 30, 2024
Yee and her colleagues wrote in response to entreaties sent by a coalition of Democrat politicians, who wrote to the same firms in support of the radical-left DEI agenda. The Democrat coalition made unfounded claims that DEI programs create “a culture of equality” that “allows your companies to remain competitive,” as reported by the Daily Wire.
Jeremy Tedesco, Alliance Defending Freedom SVP of Corporate Engagement told the outlet:
“The divisive and discriminatory ideology at the root of DEI has caused some of our country’s most prominent companies, like Home Depot, Lowes, Ford, and Toyota, to pull back on their DEI programs. We should celebrate that and call on other companies to follow their lead. Sadly, some members of Congress have instead responded by urging companies to reaffirm their DEI commitments. Businesses should listen to their employees, customers, and shareholders, rather than politicians, and jettison DEI once and for all.”
The letter from the State Officers cites scholarly studies from Econ Journal Watch and Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance that sharply disprove the Democrats’ claims that corporate DEI efforts improve bottom line earnings and debunk the McKinsey studies upon which the agenda is based. They state, “The authors of the Econ Journal Watch article reported that they were ‘unable to quasireplicate’ the McKinsey studies’ results and admonished that ‘they should not be relied on to support the view that US publicly traded firms can expect to deliver improved financial performance if they increase the racial/ethnic diversity of their executives.’”
The state officials highlighted key takeaways from a recent New York Times article for the industry leaders to consider when addressing the continuation of the controversial DEI measures: University student reactions and the birth of a “grievance culture,” and the delivery of a divisive culture as opposed to the goal of inclusivity. In a study that examined the University of Michigan’s DEI program as an exemplar of these policies, the author found in part:
“On campus, I met students with a wide range of backgrounds and perspectives. Not one expressed any particular enthusiasm for Michigan’s D.E.I. initiative. Where some found it shallow, others found it stifling. They rolled their eyes at the profusion of course offerings that revolve around identity and oppression, the D.E.I.-themed emails they frequently received but rarely read.”
The author noted, “Michigan’s D.E.I. efforts have created a powerful conceptual framework for student and faculty grievances — and formidable bureaucratic mechanisms to pursue them. Everyday campus complaints and academic disagreements, professors and students told me, were now cast as crises of inclusion and harm, each demanding some further administrative intervention or expansion.”
“Michigan’s own data suggests that in striving to become more diverse and equitable, the school has also become less inclusive: In a survey released in late 2022, students and faculty members reported a less positive campus climate than at the program’s start and less of a sense of belonging. Students were less likely to interact with people of a different race or religion or with different politics — the exact kind of engagement D.E.I. programs, in theory, are meant to foster.”
In the letter, the financial experts concluded that employees have widely expressed the same views of DEI programs with a Freedom at Work Survey conducted by Ipsos and released by Viewpoint Diversity Score, finding that 40% of respondents said the policies divide rather than unite the workplace. They added that legal exposure is also possible as Chief Justice Roberts observed, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Adding that the race-based theories and practices baked-into DEI programs “fly in the face of our colorblind Constitution and our Nation’s equality ideal.”
A recent release from the Northeast Arizona Native Democrats has raised concerns about the ethical and legal considerations involved with partisan operatives helping voters fill out and mail in their ballots.
According to the release from Northeast Arizona Native Democrats, the group held a “Ballots, Stew & Socks event,” in Sawmill, AZ, a village on the Navajo reservation described as “a remote, census-designated area in the Navajo Nation,” boasting a population of less than 800.
The Democrat group explained their mission writing:
“In that small town, our team was able to engage with over 50 voters, some who had traveled far distances, and helped them fill out and mail their ballots on time.
While in Sawmill, we were joined by a truck-load of Pinon Pickers who shared a bowl of stew with us, while talking about the issues they care about. After this engaging, inspiring conversation, they thanked us for the information we provided and committed to voting early.”
The question of legality for holding an event to assist in mailing ballots, such as the Sawmill effort, could be unlawful under A.R.S. 16-1005(H), which states: “A person who knowingly collects voted or unvoted early ballots from another person is guilty of a class 6 felony. An election official, a United States postal service worker or any other person who is allowed by law to transmit United States mail is deemed not to have collected an early ballot if the official, worker or other person is engaged in official duties.”
As the event appeared on Facebook, it advertised: “Free Meal, Warm Socks, Voter Info.” This could potentially run afoul of A.R.S. 16-1005(C), which states, “It is unlawful to receive or agree to receive any consideration in exchange for a voted or unvoted ballot. A person who violates this subsection is guilty of a class 5 felony.”
Recent legal battles have been fought pertaining to everything from providing food and water to voters as they wait in line, to Elon Musk’s efforts to forward a petition by offering a $1 million giveaway each day until the election with winners chosen from the signatories.
However, specifically in Arizona and under Arizona law, these electioneering efforts carried out in the Navajo community by the Democratic party could prove to be illegal if challenged.
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes announced during Channel 12 News’ “Sunday Square-Off,” that her office is now investigating President Donald Trump’s comments about “radical war hawk,” former U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY). The comments took place during a Glendale appearance with Tucker Carlson.
Mayes reportedly asked investigators to determine if Trump’s rhetorical remark on Cheney’s attitude toward sending American servicemen to war qualifies as a death threat when he said, “Let’s see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face.”
Speaking with 12News, Mayes said, “I have already asked my criminal division chief to start looking at that statement, analyzing it for whether it qualifies as a death threat under Arizona’s laws,” according to AZCentral.
“I’m not prepared now to say whether it was or it wasn’t, but it is not helpful as we prepare for our election and as we try to make sure that we keep the peace at our polling places and in our state,” she said.
During the campaign event at Glendale Stadium, Trump was interviewed by Tucker Carlson, and the topic turned to former Vice President Dick Cheney and his daughter’s sudden turn against him during his presidency. Trump lamented that the elder Cheney turned against him but said he understood it as a need to support his daughter.
In full context President Trump told Carlson, “Dick Cheney’s daughter is a very dumb individual. She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with a rifle standing there, with nine barrels shooting at her, okay? Let’s see how she feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained on her face. They’re all war hawks when they’re sitting in Washington in a nice building, saying, ‘Oh, gee, well, let’s send 10,000 troops right into the mouth of the enemy.’ But she’s a stupid person. And I used to have, I’d have meetings with a lot of people and she always wanted to go to war with people.”
🚨TRUMP: "Dick Cheney's daughter is a very dumb individual. She's a radical war hawk. Let's put her with a rifle standing there with 9 barrels shooting at her, let's see how she feels about it when the guns trained on her face. They're all war hawks when they're sitting in… pic.twitter.com/Wzq4BBiP8C
Per Reuters, Mayes added “That’s the question, whether it did cross the line. It’s deeply troubling. It is the kind of thing that riles people up, and that makes our situation in Arizona and other states more dangerous.”
In a post to X, Cheney alluded to Trump being a “dictator” and characterized his comment with the claim, “They threaten those who speak against them with death,” and went on to call Trump a “petty, vindictive, cruel, unstable man who wants to be a tyrant.”
Trump campaign National Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a Friday statement that his remarks were misinterpreted. She said, “President Trump is 100% correct that warmongers like Liz Cheney are very quick to start wars and send other Americans to fight them, rather than go into combat themselves.” She added that this “is just a desperate attempt to help out Kamala Harris’ failed campaign.”
Every media outlet is reporting on the new Liz Cheney hoax.
Trump did not call for her to be kiIIed. The media know this and are purposely misleading their readers and leaving out the context.
Responding to the controversy in a post to Truth Social Trump wrote, “All I’m saying about Liz Cheney is that she is a War Hawk, and a dumb one at that, but she wouldn’t have ‘the guts’ to fight herself. It’s easy for her to talk, sitting far from where the death scenes take place, but put a gun in her hand, and let her go fight, and she’ll say, ‘No thanks!’ Her father decimated the Middle East, and other places, and got rich by doing so. He’s caused plenty of DEATH, and probably never even gave it a thought. That’s not what we want running our Country!”
Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen reacted to the announcement Sunday in post to X writing, “Just learned that Kris Mayes is investigating @realDonaldTrump over what he said about Liz Cheney. First of all his comment was clearly not a threat. He said if she had to go to war instead of our kids then she would not be a warhawk. She has it completely backwards!
She should have told the media what he said was protected by the 1st amendment. Protect the Constitution instead of weaponizing your office to harrass and censure!”
She should have told the media what he said was protected by the 1st amendment. Protect the Constitution instead of weaponizing your office to harrass and censure!
Democrat candidate for Maricopa County Sheriff Tyler Kamp has been investigated by various news outlets since July. That’s when reports indicated the former Phoenix Police Department (PPD) Lieutenant was embroiled in a major sexual harassment scandal and faced charges in Payson.
The initial reporting of the harassment scandal by legacy outlets left a wide range of unanswered questions. These questions led to Maricopa County voter Brian Anderson, a researcher and founder of the Saguaro Group, to file a records request with the Phoenix PD seeking answers on Kamp’s past misconduct. However, as previously reported by AZ Free News, the PPD failed to disclose the records even after a demand letter. This prompted a lawsuit which succeeded in forcing the department to respond with records of its Internal Affairs/Equal Opportunity Employment investigation— a full ten months later.
Anderson’s attorney noted in one filing: “Defendant’s failure to disclose Mr. Kemp’s [sic] personnel records before the Primary Election has already resulted in the public not knowing possibly important matters of concern that the public should have knowledge of before voting at the General Election.”
NEW @azcentral – Democrat Tyler Kamp "repeatedly sexually harassed" a young female officer
In July, ABC15 reported on the scandal, citing a Phoenix Equal Opportunity Department probe which, at a paltry six pages, was severely lacking in detail and context. The PPD EEO report released under the Anderson lawsuit is a full eleven pages, and the findings are damning.
The victim summarized the harassment allegations, saying (Formatted for Clarity):
“From my time at the Mountain View Precinct of being an officer in training in 2020 under the training of ::REDACTED:: to July 24,2021 of being on 71B I was sexually harassed and affected in and out the work place emotionally and mentally by Lieutenant Tyler Kamp due to many inappropriate sexual comments.
The majority of this took place over text messages and phone calls as well as feeling pressured to meet in person on duty for non-work related topics.
Tyler Kamp was given multiple warnings of the inappropriate behavior over text messages, which did not stop after the first warning. Tyler would:
Ask me to go out with him to buy me drinks outside of work while being an officer in training and as a probationary officer
Comment about my body and weight
Send text messages that would include him stating about how I looked in yoga pants and about me bending over and having flirty eyes
Tell me to bring an etra(sic) pair of pants for after shift regarding meeting with him on New Years Eve
Become upset that I “ghosted” him on New Years Eve
Ask me if the best time to talk to me was after I have had a few drinks
Ask if I was proud of him for not telling me anything inappropriate when he was drinking
Make his presence known to me while in common areas
Tell me he would look at me in his training class and was disappointed that I did not solicit his attention more
Restrict me from working and taking calls for service on duty to meet him for non work related topics,
Restrict me from training and career advancements due to jealous behavior over my relationship and disregarding that I was in a relationship, causing me to avoid going into the precinct intentionally to avoid contact with him which resulted in me staying in my patrol vehicle until end of shift.
I purposely avoided contact with Tyler Kamp and he would send text messages regarding me avoiding him. He would:
Tell me over the phone that other employees such as ::REDACTED:: are jealous of me due to my looks and that I get special treatment that will offend other officers in as well as he had knowledge that I was being treated poorly by my FTO sergeant
Make me feel I could not defend or speak up for myself due to him being my direct lieutenant
Constantly track where I was at work, when I would arrive in, what I was driving in addition to making comments of what I was wearing such as yoga pants and thanking me for wearing the yoga pants.
Track where I was on shift and make contact with me asking why I would not respond to his text messages
Randomly text me not to marry young and about his his sex life in addition to informing me that he was a virgin when he married
Send morning and good night messages
Send me pictures of a female ATF employee that he stated was flirty and one of the pictures included her in a setting where she was unaware of him taking the picture and one of her in uniform while he was in uniform
Asking me to call him while off duty and to meet him on duty
Talk about inappropriate stories of him and his coworkers regarding drinking and stripper poles.
This behavior continued for a long period and made me feel I was put in a position of having to stay respectful, kind and allow this to continue for a long period over fear of losing my job. I was extremely uncomfortable with the behavior and this damaged my training and ability to work functionally at work and have to constantly be mentally prepared for the behavior and potentially come in contact with Tyler Kamp. I have struggled over this issue for a long time and continuously tried to cope with how I am seen and viewed at my work place, afraid of trusting any employee at a higher rank and feeling at a loss.”
Here are a few additional excerpts from her more detailed accounts:
Kamp “texted me in response to my previous message and asked me how a petite woman can hold down whiskey and that ‘I’m sure we will find out soon haha’”
“Taking notice of what time I got to work and stated ‘Yoga pants??? Shoot I missed it…’”
Kamp asked, “So was it bad that I admitted they look REALLY good on you??”
Two days later, Kamp “noted that I had the perfect body for gymnastics” and “added that he was sure I could show him some yoga stuff (big eyes emoji)”
Kamp then asked for a photograph of the victim’s family and “told me that my younger sister looks like me” even though the sister was younger than 18 years old; “This part upset me due to being aware of his attraction towards me and then commenting about how my minor sister looked like me.”
In November 2022, Kamp was reportedly interviewed and denied the sexual harassment allegations. He claimed the text messages were “friendly banter,” saying, “To me, I mean, it was just like friendly banter back-and-forth, but at the same time it was — it was a friendship. So, I mean, I might have friendly banter with another guy or another girl. It doesn’t mean that I’m necessarily attracted to ‘em or it doesn’t mean that, like, I’m trying to get in their pants or anything like that and vice-versa, like, I just don’t look at it that way. I think it’s more just in good fun. It’s more like in good fun.”
He claimed that if the text allegations were true, “I’m still not following why that would even be sexual harassment, but I don’t know if you can explain that or not.”
