During the past few months a flurry of memoranda has been published by Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry on various topics, including one accusing me of “damaging the brand” in an attempt to unseat incumbent county supervisors in the upcoming 2016 election.
In addition, Star columnist Tim Steller has published articles accusing me of intentionally “damaging the Pima County brand.”
I reflected on these assertions and realize that while the topics may vary, the underlying missive was about “power” — who has it and who doesn’t, who gets to call the shots, and what happens to those that oppose the power brokers, especially when it comes to county taxpayers.
More importantly, who really has the power to damage the Pima County brand? From a diplomatic standpoint, let’s take a look at recent actions of the board to understand how they damage the Pima County brand.
In January, Huckelberry wrote a recommendation for the supervisors to approve the $16 million-plus World View space balloon deal.
In that memo, Huckelberry informed the supervisors about two companies that had been working in secret on the project with the county for 6 months without payment.
Huckelberry then announced that both contractors would receive approximately $13 million in contracts without having to go through a formal competitive bidding process as is required per Arizona statute.
When a government agency circumvents established state procurement standards, one can only ask who is truly damaging the brand: the party responsible for violating the procurement process or the person who questions the violation of the prescribed procurement process?
How do you think that procurement violation shows up in financial audit reports? If the procurement is labeled as an “emergency” procurement, chances are you won’t be able to readily “connect those dots.”
That is my job — making sure that taxpayer dollars are spent in a manner that holds each and every one of us accountable to the taxpayers.
If my questioning of the legality of a procurement is “damaging the brand,” then we’d better take a closer look at our brand and everything it represents.
I firmly believe that when we fail to ensure compliance to state statutes, we run the risk of damaging the Pima County brand.
Huckelberry asserts in a memo published on April 4, 2016, that by questioning issues, one would be “attempting to influence the outcome of an election.”
To that, I say “nonsense.” Speaking the truth to power makes the power brokers uncomfortable — their house of cards begins to collapse.
I will speak truth to power, and I will continue to question projects presented to the board to help the taxpayers understand what’s at stake.
And I promise to continue working toward realizing the full potential of the Pima County brand.
