It is entertaining to speculate on the motives behind Goldwater Institute's actions pertaining to this case.
One possibility is that they are "true believers," acting solely on principle, as they maintain.
However, the Goldwater Institute is at its essence a political organization, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that politics may be in play here.
One interesting, underreported aspect of this story is the nexus between Jerry Moyes and the Goldwater Institute.
For example:
- Jerry Moyes is being sued personally by the NHL for $60M.
- Jerry Moyes is a donor and past board member of the Goldwater Institute. (
http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/file/3182/download/3182)
- The Goldwater Institute did not get involved in government-sponsored in sports-related deals in Arizona in the recent past.
So why did they get so involved in this deal? How do you think Jerry Moyes feels about the NHL these days? Remember the emails posted by GSC and others back in the bankruptcy trial days about the communications between Moyes' legal team and Rodier? It doesn't stretch the imagination to wonder if the Goldwater Institute isn't carrying water on behalf of one of their politically connected friends and important donors and former board members.
I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that much public behavior can be accounted for in terms of operators acting with rational self-interest.
So what is in Darcy Olsen's, Clint Bolick's, and the Goldwater Institute's self interest?
- Increased visibility and publicity
- Which in turn, leads to increased influence and monetary donations
- Which leads to satisfied donors and a satisfied board of directors
- Which translates to increased job security and higher pay, as well as future opportunities at larger nonprofits
If you look at the Goldwater Institute's financials, most of their budget goes to pay salaries. It stands to follow that, the more money they can bring in, the bigger the budget will be, and the more money they can pay themselves. There's nothing wrong with that; we all like to make more money. But it doesn't mean that the Goldwater Institute and its employees are somehow more noble, pure, and free from self-interest than the rest of us.
In 2007, Darcy Olsen made $180,000 as CEO. Clint Bolick made $126,875. In 2009, Darcy Olsen made $227,268, and Clint Bolick made $273,479. Those are pretty significant raises, especially in the context of a recession and declining revenue (Goldwater 2007 revenue was $3,460,951 and 2009 revenue $2,681,328).
Links to the Goldwater Form 990's:
2007:
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments//2007/860/597/2007-860597661-048bfad6-9.pdf
2009:
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments//2009/860/597/2009-860597661-069a20fd-9.pdf
Who sets their compensation? Their board of directors. If Darcy Olsen, Clint Bolick, and others can harness the current political climate to increase publicity and donations, and please a big donor and friend of the organization (and former board member) like Jerry Moyes, why wouldn't they?
If they can increase the budget and influence of the Institute, they will undoubtedly be rewarded by their board with increased compensation. It would also increase their profile and chances of landing a gig at a bigger think tank with even better compensation.
Again, there's nothing illegal or anything about this. It's just the way the system (and the world) works. But it does get tiresome when Darcy Olsen et al are lionized as heroes looking out for the little taxpayers, when they themselves stand to benefit handsomely, both personally and as an organization, from this situation.
This accounts for the "not our problem" response from Darcy Olsen when asked about the hypothetical scenario where Goldwater would succesfully sue to block the sale after the bonds have already sold, leaving the City of Glendale without a team in the arena but with the liability of the bonds on their books.