The line that prematurely ended Greg Pattersonâs term as a member of the Arizona Board of Regents was memorable.
âThe costume doesnât work,â he told Rep. Mark Finchem in February. âTrim that down, buy a suit. Decide where you want to be, but this isnât it.â
It was overkill on the part of the then-chair of the Arizona Board of Regents, as he acknowledges. Patterson was angry about a bill Finchem had proposed and was, it seems, trying to play a Trump-style dominance game in the meeting with Finchem, of Oro Valley, and fellow GOP Rep. Jill Norgaard of Phoenix. When the Arizona Republic revealed the recording last week, Patterson first apologized, then resigned as a regent.
But the 25-minute recording, made secretly by Patterson, also reveals interesting details of the debate among state Republicans on their approach to funding the University of Arizona and the other state universities. Finchem and Norgaard had proposed abolishing the Board of Regents as it exists now and replacing it with separate oversight boards for each of the three universities. They were concerned in part by what they considered overspending by the universities.
Patterson and Eileen Klein, who is president of the Board of Regents, met with them to argue the regents were actually performing their oversight role well and that the lawmakersâ proposal would have the opposite of the intended effect. Finchem, whom Iâve viewed as an occasionally embarrassing legislator because of his embrace of conspiracy theories, began the meeting by complaining about the criticism the Legislature gets for its low funding of the universities.
âIt doesnât help that we are beaten over a head with a club in the media day after day after day on being tightwad cheap asses when it comes to funding university operations,â he told Patterson in the recording. âI will tell you I find that, and I know that my fellow members find that, extremely offensive, especially when there are college programs for students who are not here legally, there are kids who are not getting an education as nearly free as possible.â
This was a reference to the provision of the Arizona Constitution that says of the state universities, âthe instruction furnished shall be as nearly free as possible.â
Patterson, who was a legislator in the early 1990s, suggested in the meeting that todayâs legislators could have had more criticism, but that the regents protected them.
âYouâre getting beat over the head, but itâs not by us. When I was here there were 86,000 kids in the system, and we appropriated $581 million in 1991 dollars,â he said. âThereâs 165,000 kids in the system, and you appropriate $681 million. Itâs less money, in real terms, than I appropriated here 26 years ago.â
âSince then, the system has relied on higher tuition, itâs relied on outside revenue, itâs relied on dormitories and research expenditures that we can bring in as much as possible. The systems have been systematically privatized, and you have an eight-member Republican board that does not pummel you for that.â
Republic revenge
Patterson, you may recall, maintained a blog for about a decade and has resumed writing it recently. The blog was dedicated in large measure to criticizing the Arizona news media, especially the Arizona Republic but also the Star and occasionally me personally.
Go back through his archives and youâll find a drumbeat of often acid critiques of Republic writers, some of it fair, as well as gleeful celebration of the newspaper industryâs expected demise that I find distasteful. His obsession with those two entities came through even in the conversation with Finchem and Norgaard, when he defended the salary of then-UA President Ann Weaver Hart by comparing it to what an executive of the Republicâs parent company would make.
âItâs certainly a fraction of what youâd make at Gannett in the private sector, which is a collapsing business,â he said.
So, you could view it as fitting that Republic reporters, through innovative use of Arizonaâs public-records law, essentially forced Patterson out. The Republic had reported Pattersonâs angry words for Finchem in April, but then they also found out Patterson had recorded the meeting, and they successfully argued that the recording was a public record that must be released under state law.
Getting the recording was good digging that made Pattersonâs position untenable before the Legislature. Of course, Patterson made an argument on his blog that Finchem could have been made out as the âgoatâ of the story. He subsequently deleted the post, but Iâm sure weâll hear more from Patterson before long, likely criticizing this column and pointing to it as a reason for the newspaper industryâs eventual demise.
Watermelon Eegeeâs
You canât go wrong in Tucson politics extolling Eegeeâs. Gov. Doug Ducey talked about getting an Eegeeâs card during his earlier years leading the state, and that line was a winner in his speeches here.
Now Mayor Jonathan Rothschild has taken that to the next level. His request that, in light of record high temperatures, Eegeeâs release its watermelon flavor early, was met with a quick response from the company. A mainline of watermelon Eegeeâs has been jabbed into Tucsonâs collective vein.
I was entertained by Rothschildâs move â weâre all a little loco in the summer heat â but was concerned you should know the inspiration of the idea. Itâs local blogger, gadfly and occasional radio talker David Morales who has been demanding a return of what he considers Eegeeâs most cooling flavor before the usual July date.
I repeated his demands on social media, then my colleague Joe Ferguson repeated them in conversation at a City Council meeting. Before we knew it, the mayor was involved, making good use of his bully pulpit to demand the release of the one substance that could ease our citywide overheating.
