Last week, mayoral candidate Wes Gullett received a great deal of bi-partisan criticism for his refusal to divest himself from the lobbyist firm he currently owns.
In a press release from Peggy Neely’s campaign, former Phoenix Mayor Skip Rimsza said special interest groups are trying to buy influence through lobbyists and insiders working behind closed doors and that Gullett’s history shows why lobbyist reform is needed now more than ever. Then, Councilman Claude Mattox got in on the action, challenging Gullett to “tell the voters of Phoenix if he intends to represent them, or continue to look out for the interests of the photo-radar billboard companies, utilities, private water companies, developers and the homebuilding industry his firm has represented over the years.” Gullett eventually relented, and promised to divest himself of his firm if elected.
One of the Valley’s most astute political observers, conservative Arizona Republic columnist Bob Robb said on KPNX-Channel 12’s Sunday Square Off, “I think this lobbyist issue has really hurt [Gullett]. . . Him equivocating for so long about his willingness to step away completely from his lobbying firm, I think, damaged his momentum enormously.”
Although Gullett surely wishes the issue would just go away, opponents continue to press him to answer questions about his lobbyist activities.
Today, Greg Stanton’s campaign said that Gullett made a vote to benefit his client when Gullett served on the city’s powerful Planning and Zoning Commission, but never declared a conflict of interest.
The Stanton campaign said:
In 2008, Gullett represented several builders and housing developments, as well as the Arizona Association of Realtors, while he simultaneously served on the Phoenix commission. When the commission considered a vote on impact fees on September 10, 2008, which require developers to help pay for infrastructure such as streets, sewers and sidewalks, an affiliate of Gullett’s client, the Phoenix Association of Realtors, testified before the commission against recommending new impact fees. Shortly thereafter, Gullett advanced the position of his clients, and voted no.
If true, this would no doubt further damage Gullett’s campaign. It could also raise questions over whether Gullett was legally obligated to declare a conflict of interest, and abstain from the vote in question. As the Stanton campaign pointed out, A.R.S. § 38-503(B) provides that “Any public officer or employee who has, or whose relative has, a substantial interest in any decision of a public agency shall make known such interest in the official records of such public agency and shall refrain from participating in any manner as an officer or employee in such decision.”
State of the 48th
Bill Scheel
jeaninelecuyer36
Seth Scott
neilgiuliano
arizonareader
[...] Greg Stanton has continued to take Gullett to task for his lobbyist background, this time, calling into question Gullett failing to declare a conflict of interest on votes while he was on the Phoenix Planning Commission. Here is a great wrap up on this issue. [...]