Phoenix LXXXII: "Waive Reading Beyond the Title"

[barneyg]

Who's in the best place to analyze this matter? Healy, former goalie, no Stanley cup title, no education in journalism, lost somewhere in the great white north, couple thousand miles away from Glendaleland or Morgan, the respected experienced journalist living in the dead center of the action, getting access to whoever he wants?

Stay calm, Gary Bettman is protecting the Coyotes, if he found a way to keep'em there for 4 years now, he will find a way to keep'em another 4 years.

Emphasis mine -- wrong question. Whether Morgan, with Sherwood and someone in the NHL as sources, will turn out to be right, is one thing. Whether he can "analyze" anything, well, given the content of his articles and his tweets, it's safe to say no.

 

[JetSabre]

*puts on sneaky corporate hat*

Why couldn't the NHL use the escrow money to bridge the gap for 2 years?

It'd be better for all involved just to move the team immediately, and for the NHL to give that $20 million back to Glendale and tell them "see, we really feel bad, here's your money back."

 

[Phil Parent]

And we are now between the semi-finals and finals - an interesting time indeed.

Many people think that, if a move is to be made this year, it will be announced between now and the first game of the finals.

 

[Donwood]

And we are now between the semi-finals and finals - an interesting time indeed.

Many people think that, if a move is to be made this year, it will be announced between now and the first game of the finals.

Finals start Wed, the NHL may hope Glendale reveals at least 1 great arena management bid.

 

[LeafShark]

And we are now between the semi-finals and finals - an interesting time indeed.

Many people think that, if a move is to be made this year, it will be announced between now and the first game of the finals.

I think Bettman's going to gamble and try to make the announcement after the playoffs are over. It's simply to early to make the move now. Not enough has happened yet.

 

[Donwood]

I think Bettman's going to gamble and try to make the announcement after the playoffs are over. It's simply to early to make the move now. Not enough has happened yet.

I believe game 2 isn't until Saturday, so if Glendale reveals good arena bids and Tuesday shows little or no attempt to alter the budget, perhaps Thursday or Friday.

 

[viper0220]

I think Bettman's going to gamble and try to make the announcement after the playoffs are over. It's simply to early to make the move now. Not enough has happened yet.

There is not going to be any announcement, it is too late to move the now, let alone after the finals. Moving the team is too late now.

 

[viper0220]

I believe game 2 isn't until Saturday, so if Glendale reveals good arena bids and Tuesday shows little or no attempt to alter the budget, perhaps Thursday or Friday.

Nope not really, it is over now for moving the team, they are going to keep it where it is now. They can use the $20 million sitting in the bank(from Glendale) or cover the costs them selves, get Goosebee(or who ever) to cover the costs or rob the bank.

 

[Donwood]

There is not going to be any announcement, it is too late to move the now, let alone after the finals. Moving the team is too late now.

Not too late until the schedule is final and it isn't because Olympic participation is not finalized.

 

[viper0220]

Not too late until the schedule is final and it isn't because Olympic participation is not finalized.

Could this be the cause the NHL is holding up the Olympic talk.

 

[DeathToAllButMetal]

Sounds like some serious "splitting hairs" going on here in Glendale.

They meet in small groups to avoid the Open Meeting Law, yet they are telling people it wasn't really a meeting ( no agenda, no note taking, etc. ) so nobody should have any issues with it. So if it wasn't a meeting, why not get everyone together for coffee at the same time? Because according to the law, it was a meeting if so many people meet.

They are politicians and they are entrusted with spending the publics money, so that's why they have rules in place to be followed.

I guess if they "meet" in small groups, nothing could actually be decided, but it is a fine line. Me personally am not responsible for the public purse, but this happens all the time in private industry... The "meeting" before the real meeting. I have gone to coffee at Tim's to discuss $500,000 equipment purchases for my industry with vendors. We do this to hammer out the details without the big bosses involved ( bosses manage, they don't actually do any real work ) and then we have the real meeting with the bosses to finalize things based on the "informal" meeting. Saves everyone a lot of time and we get things done.

Doesn't matter if anything can be decided or not. You meet with the intent of discussing council business, it needs to be in the open. Here in Ontario, you don't even have to have a quorum. Get, say, three members of a seven-person council together at Tim Hortons, where they discuss how they might vote on council business, that is a violation of the open meetings provisions. We don't have anything about quorum in there, specifically to avoid attempts to skirt the rules, like with Glendale.

Our ombudsman has virtually no power to do anything other than investigate and embarrass the offenders, though. That office has no ability to remove or really punish an offender found guilty, although council have codes of conduct that can punish individuals based on the municipal act. Only the courts can pull someone out of office, and not for anything like violating closed-meeting rules.

What I don't get here with Glendale is why they didn't just close the doors and meet with the NHL as part of a full council meeting in-camera session. I assume AZ councils have that ability, given how you need to shut the doors sometimes with legal negs, property sales, personnel matters, etc. And Glendale has that executive session closed-door stuff all the time. So why didn't they do this behind closed doors legally?

Glad to see someone in AZ paying attention to this. I wrote about it last week in the last thread, incredulous that more people here and in Glendale didn't have problems with what was going on. Amazingly blatant and stupid violation of AZ's meeting rules. The whole bunch should be tossed out of office, given the rules down there. You couldn't be more open in your contempt for the open-meeting law. Good on Alvarez for not going. I wouldn't have participated in anything like that, either.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Another topic and another deadline's come and gone.

I'm not even surprised any more.

 

[DeathToAllButMetal]

Rules are flexible. That's what jurisprudence is all about. Personally, I don't have any problem with the meetings of May 28 at all. In fact, I strongly support it. I present this for thought:

If Sergey Brin contacted the city to discuss a public-private partnership for a new Googleplex, shouldn't the representative take that meeting even if it meant attending successive small groups because Google didn't want it to be a public meeting? I don't think there is anything conniving about listening to a business proposal in private.

There would only seem to be a problem if the city staff was colluding with the private entity. Hypothetically, if the City Manager discouraged an RFP process that would provide competitive options for the city and instead hired a crooked consultant to provide erroneous economic impact reports. Or, hypothetically, if the City Attorney wrote a lease that indemnified the private entity for their own inability to act.

But even then, the system of checks and balances would prevent any misdeed because the legislative body could review the staff's work and reject is. Unless, hypothetically, the legislative body was a Council of Misfit Toys with some waterguns that shot jelly, a Joyce in the Box, and assorted other urban planning flunkies.

Was it really the meeting that was the problem?

Sorry, this whole line of thinking is absurd. It's a problem because the entire process of government needs to be transparent for anyone to have any trust in the system. That includes both members of the public and councillors themselves, by the way, because nothing causes a council to fall apart faster than the mayor or a clique of councillors running the show and not keeping the entire group in the loop on major issues.

Good governance always has to take place in the open. Private conversations like you discuss in your post are always possible, but there are rules to follow, and you have to have good reasons for closing the doors. Glendale actually did have good reasons in this case, which is why I don't understand why the NHL meetings were even structured like they were last week.

Here's another reason why those staggered meetings should not have taken place. Divide and conquer works. I've seen it happen. Say you're dealing with a contentious issue with, I dunno, seven councillors. Two are very negative on this issue. Put this duo in a room with the whole group, and you expose that whole group to their negative arguments, which opens the door to the pair possibly convincing the others to go along with their opposition. Split everyone up into separate meeting groups, though, and you have much, much less of a chance of this negative pair making any headway with the others. Splitting councillors up as was done last week can be really effective in terms of limiting full debate and directing the overall discussion.

I wonder who forced this staggered meeting schedule? The NHL? Part of me wonders if this was about getting around the AZ meeting rules (because it sure seems like there were legal avenues to have this meeting with the whole council in private) or if it had to do with the NHL trying to manipulate the whole process. After all, there are still a few councillors in favour of making a deal here. Sprinkle them in all of the groups that met with the NHL, and you give them more of a voice than they would have if the whole group met together.

Anyhow, lots of reasons that meetings like this are very bad news.

 

[aqib]

You can say whatever you want, if the league wants to play in front of 3000 fans, they will play in front of 3000 fans.

You, me, have strictly no influence on this whatsoever.

I want to see another NHL team in BK: guess what? It will be the Coyotes.

Can't wait to see if Morgan was right on. I hope the experienced journalist is better then the no cup retired goalie.

Acesolid: message privé.

I am pretty sure the network has sources and Healy saying on camera what he was told they found. We all knew that there was a gap between what Glendale had budgeted and what RSE was going to demand. We just didn't know they exact amount they were asking for and now we do.

 

[madhi19]

I am pretty sure the network has sources and Healy saying on camera what he was told they found. We all knew that there was a gap between what Glendale had budgeted and what RSE was going to demand. We just didn't know they exact amount they were asking for and now we do.

Healy number is probably right I bet if somebody in the NHL wanted to whisper that kind of details they would not call Morgan to do it but somebody on HNIC that way more likely. This is one of the planned leaks things are about to go down.

 

[CasualFan]

It's all pretty subjective, but here's my retort:

Sorry, this whole line of thinking is absurd.

Disagree

It's a problem because the entire process of government needs to be transparent for anyone to have any trust in the system. That includes both members of the public and councillors themselves, by the way,

- Anytime one deals in absolutes, one forfeits the immense benefits of flexibility. "entire" processes contain many elements, some of which are rightly exempt from public disclosure.

because nothing causes a council to fall apart faster than the mayor or a clique of councillors running the show and not keeping the entire group in the loop on major issues.

- Coalition and bloc voting are as old as representative democracy itself. Councils don't fall apart due to cliques; councils are built on cliques.

Good governance always has to take place in the open.

- Good governance generally occurs when an educated and informed legislative body deploys public resources in a manner that yields the most benefit for the constituency. The accessibility of the forum in which a public resource decision is made is largely irrelevant. The intent of the legislature most often determines the effectiveness of governance. However, the constituency usually has diverse interests, so no single solution appeals to all. Hence, effectiveness itself is highly subjective.

Private conversations like you discuss in your post are always possible, but there are rules to follow, and you have to have good reasons for closing the doors. Glendale actually did have good reasons in this case, which is why I don't understand why the NHL meetings were even structured like they were last week.

- They were structured to avoid FOIA and OML. The parties involved wanted to privilege the conversation.

Here's another reason why those staggered meetings should not have taken place. Divide and conquer works. I've seen it happen. Say you're dealing with a contentious issue with, I dunno, seven councillors. Two are very negative on this issue. Put this duo in a room with the whole group, and you expose that whole group to their negative arguments, which opens the door to the pair possibly convincing the others to go along with their opposition. Split everyone up into separate meeting groups, though, and you have much, much less of a chance of this negative pair making any headway with the others. Splitting councillors up as was done last week can be really effective in terms of limiting full debate and directing the overall discussion.

- I don't recall the configuration off the top of my head but I think divide and conquer is a bit of a stretch. It also seems to ignore the fact that at some point, the council is going to be in open session, likely with a roll call vote on the issue. In the above example, the two very negative legislators would have the opportunity to voice their negative plus make reference to the divide and conquer attempt. In the end, if the bloc out flanked them, their disapproval was irrelevant from beginning to middle to end, so what difference does it make when they present their unified dislike?

I wonder who forced this staggered meeting schedule? The NHL?

- Force seems like the wrong word. Proposed meeting scheduled that was willingly accepted feels more accurate.

Part of me wonders if this was about getting around the AZ meeting rules (because it sure seems like there were legal avenues to have this meeting with the whole council in private) or if it had to do with the NHL trying to manipulate the whole process. After all, there are still a few councillors in favour of making a deal here. Sprinkle them in all of the groups that met with the NHL, and you give them more of a voice than they would have if the whole group met together.

- Once again, this entire paragraph predisposes that council members are universally sloth creates who are incapable of rational thought and thus easily manipulated. Frate, Clark, Martinez, et al sure don't help my point here, but not everyone in an elected office is really that dumb.

Anyhow, lots of reasons that meetings like this are very bad news.

- Disagree.

 

[wildcat48]

It’s nothing more than reverse psychology for those that are telling themselves that’s it’s too late to move the team…. As long as a schedule hasn’t been released it’s not too late and even then the NHL makes it own rules. Sometimes they make them as they go along so we could get to August and they decide ‘let’s move a team’…. I’m sensing we won’t really know anything conclusive until the CoG meets for a workshop on the 18th. We have a deadline of the 25th where we’ll know one way or another exactly what is going on with the arena management. If we get to that point I could see the Coyotes with a table at the draft.

The NHL/PKP have a playbook for handling franchise relocation…. They just haven’t used it yet.

 

[Shawa666]

It’s nothing more than reverse psychology for those that are telling themselves that’s it’s too late to move the team…. As long as a schedule hasn’t been released it’s not too late and even then the NHL makes it own rules. Sometimes they make them as they go along so we could get to August and they decide ‘let’s move a team’…. I’m sensing we won’t really know anything conclusive until the CoG meets for a workshop on the 18th. We have a deadline of the 25th where we’ll know one way or another exactly what is going on with the arena management. If we get to that point I could see the Coyotes with a table at the draft.

The NHL/PKP have a playbook for handling franchise relocation…. They just haven’t used it yet.

Heh I don't think they bought out Gestev for ***** and giggles.

 

[wildthing202]

It’s nothing more than reverse psychology for those that are telling themselves that’s it’s too late to move the team…. As long as a schedule hasn’t been released it’s not too late and even then the NHL makes it own rules. Sometimes they make them as they go along so we could get to August and they decide ‘let’s move a team’…. I’m sensing we won’t really know anything conclusive until the CoG meets for a workshop on the 18th. We have a deadline of the 25th where we’ll know one way or another exactly what is going on with the arena management. If we get to that point I could see the Coyotes with a table at the draft.

The NHL/PKP have a playbook for handling franchise relocation…. They just haven’t used it yet.

I just don't see the schedule having any kind of bearing on relocation I mean just this past season they re-did the league schedule in a month's time once the lockout was over, if they had to I'm sure they could do the same thing with a relocation and adjust the 41+ games on the schedule to accommodate the would-be Nords in July or August.

 

[Whileee]

Anyhow, lots of reasons that meetings like this are very bad news.

- Disagree.

I tend to agree with you on this, CF. There have been many examples of unprincipled governance and bureaucratic work in Glendale regarding the Coyotes issue, but having some private meetings between the NHL and the council members are not included. It is a lot better than the situation when Beasley would cook up private agreements with potential owners, provide misleading and false information to council, and then have them vote on issues without being fully informed. Then there is the issue of how the city financial rules were flouted, etc.

In the end, the city council is elected to make the right decisions in their best judgement. If they think that when all issues are considered, the City of Glendale would be better off keeping the Coyotes, even if it means overpaying on an AMF by cutting services and/or raising taxes, then so be it. The problem arises when they try to mislead the public about why they believe they must do this. Flouting the Arizona "gift clause" is likely relevant only if an entity decides to challenge them.

 

[OthmarAmmann]

That the initial discussions were in private are understandable.

That the initial point of contact was with council rather than administration smacks of desperation on the NHL's part.

 

[Killion]

There have been many examples of unprincipled governance and bureaucratic work in Glendale regarding the Coyotes issue, but having some private meetings between the NHL and the council members are not included....The problem arises when they try to mislead the public about why they believe they must do this.

Ya, I really dont care one way or the other with respect to the initial meetings between the NHL, Renaissance & City Council, that they broke up into smaller groups in order to avoid Open Meeting Rules, then ridiculously claimed they werent actually meetings , Big Deal, understandable actually, no need to be giving flight to optimism with so much ground yet to be covered, things still unformed & in-flux. Little to nothing of import discussed. Seemed more meet & greet, talking in generalities, concept. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to have held a group meeting in Executive Session rather than having given the impression that they were circumventing Open Meeting Rules, then released whatever was discussed, made substantive comments, whatever. As nothing of any serious import was seemingly discussed, Im ambivalent, but if a citizen, several or whatever take issue with it & want to press it, then file a complaint with the Ombudsmans Offices. Clearly theres a pattern here, that Weiers (and others) promises of transparency were hollow, empty. Feigned indignation with the previous Mayor & Councils propensities towards secrecy & obfuscation. Pretty much A-typical of the political classes at all levels. Doesnt make it right, but they cant hide forever, more serious issues at hand than Open Meeting Rules.

 

[Donwood]

I just don't see the schedule having any kind of bearing on relocation I mean just this past season they re-did the league schedule in a month's time once the lockout was over, if they had to I'm sure they could do the same thing with a relocation and adjust the 41+ games on the schedule to accommodate the would-be Nords in July or August.

Buildings are booked, Hotel and transportation arranged. Last year as the NHL cancelled a few weeks at a time, the teams would have cancelled the arrangements. Heck I wish I could say they could wait forever but once the schedule is out it is too late.

 

[Wheathead]

The NHL knows their "drop dead date." The COG knows it too. It doesn't need to be trumpeted in the media.

And that date is before June 25th, which is why Freidman said last night on the CBC HNIC Hotstove that the NHL is pushing for a decision sooner.

No decision is a "no." The NHL can't be left holding the bag.

We're approaching the end, either way.

 

[aqib]

There is not going to be any announcement, it is too late to move the now, let alone after the finals. Moving the team is too late now.

Until someone explains WHY it is too late since the schedule isn't out, I am calling BS on this too late thing. Ticket sales will take an hour. Renovations have been underway forever. They will have to keep the front office in tact even if they don't want to and hiring a coach won't be a problem they can either offer Tippet a contract extension or call Mark Crawford. Whats left?