Bundgaard we know, but what about...

Then there's Daniel Patterson.

State Rep. Daniel Patterson (D-LD29), by all accounts a passionate environmental activist in Tucson, is currently embroiled in his own domestic situation.

Both Patterson and his wife, Jeneiene Schaffer filed for divorce last summer.

Schaffer sought an Order of Protection based on a history of domestic violence in their marriage.  Patterson has also, in the past, been charged with assault and disorderly conduct in situations not involving his wife.

There are a number of issues to sort out regarding the Pattersons' divorce and Daniel's temper, but some things are clear and evident.  At minimum, it appears Daniel has anger issues which have gotten him in trouble on multiple occasions and in a variety of situations.

Tucson blogger Three Sonorans wrote about this situation a couple of days ago.  Patterson left a comment on that blog saying:

This one-sided wrong blogger, who regularly attacks Arizona Democrats and pretty much everyone, has never attempted to contact me for the truth.
My wife and I agreed to get a divorce. This is a hard time for me and my family.
Sadly, there are some rumors around that have no merit. Don’t believe the hype.
I have always supported my family, I still do and I will continue to.
Divorce is a difficult private personal family matter and I am asking people to please respect that.

The Arizona Eagletarian interviewed Schaffer and has made several attempts, by phone and email to get Patterson's side of the story. 

The ONLY response from Patterson sounds eerily the same as his comment to Three Sonorans AND like it was written by an attorney:

My wife and I have agreed to get a divorce. This is a hard time for me and my family. Sadly, there are some rumors around that have no merit. Don't believe the hype. I have always supported my family, I still do and I will continue to. Divorce is a difficult private personal family matter and I am asking people to please respect that.

However, Patterson is a public figure.   He has had multiple police reports filed which clearly reflect the fact that his temper/anger have gotten him in trouble.  There should be no question that this has become a matter of public concern. 

IF Patterson and his wife had AGREED on the divorce, having filed last summer, the litigation would not have been drawn out, it would be over by now.  As of today, there is no divorce decree, several hearings have taken place and a trial date has been set.  Those facts do not support a claim that he and his wife agreed on anything except that they needed to get a divorce.

Patterson further claims that he has always supported his family, still does, and will continue to do so.  What does Patterson mean when he uses the word "support?" 

Patterson's employer (other than the Arizona House of Representatives) is Washington, DC based non-profit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).  PEER was served with wage assignment orders from the Pima County Courts in January. 

According to documents issued by the Pima County Child Support Clearinghouse, PEER has not yet responded to the order or forwarded any support for the Pattersons' daughter.  Schaffer's situation clearly shows that Patterson has not provided financial support as required by Arizona Revised Statutes Section 25-320 and ordered by Pima County Superior Court.

Is the irony in Patterson's comments along with the fact that whistle-blower organization PEER appears to be stonewalling on Patterson's behalf lost in the shuffle?

Anyone who has been through a divorce with children involved knows it puts a tremendous amount of stress on the family and on the children.


Many of Patterson's colleagues in the state legislature are aware of his anger issues.  Some have noted as much in communications with Schaffer.

While there are parallels between Bundgaard and Patterson and their situations, there are also major differences.  Bundgaard doesn't, as a result of his freeway encounter with Aubry Ballard, have to deal with supporting a child.

I can speculate as to why Tucson area Democrats didn't deal with Patterson's situation last summer.  It was election season.  Patterson represents a "safe" (another irony, perhaps?) district for Democrats in state legislative races. 

The Arizona Coalition against Domestic Violence has called for both Bundgaard and Patterson to resign.  In that call, the Coalition states:

Media reports and public statements about the current cases send a dangerous message to victims suffering through abuse that their calls for help may not be believed or answered.   

If they were to resign, Arizona law provides that those appointed to replace them would have to be from the same party as the resigning official.  What is the downside, from the perspective of the voters or political parties?

Have people forgotten the lessons of history, or did they ever learn in the first place?

In December, 1776, Thomas Paine wrote, "These are the times that try men's souls," at the beginning of his essay on the American Crisis.   

Was that the first time that tried men's souls?  Or the last?

Not only did Paine foment the American Revolution, he rebutted, in the Rights of Man, Edmund Burke's attack on those responsible for the French Revolution.   Burke wrote Reflections on the Revolution in France to dissuade Brits from getting any idea about doing the same thing.

 From EarlyAmerica.com:

When The Rights of Man was printed in America, it created a new sensation. Not because of the principles outlining American Jeffersonian democracy, but because the publisher had printed in the front of the book remarks from a letter from Thomas Jefferson, in which Jefferson pointed a finger at Vice-president Adams.

In England The Rights of Man encountered a response like no other in English publishing history. The poor pooled their pennies, supplementing it with meager savings to buy the book. The Rights of Man became an underground manifesto, passed from hand to hand, even when it became a crime to be found with it in one's possession.


The book became a bible to thousands of citizens who dreamed of a free England. Time after time, when men were tried for treason, invariably the Crown offered as evidence to the jury the fact that these men possessed a copy of The Rights of Man.

Outlawed for treason, Paine fled to France in 1792, never to return to England again.

And what of the revolution that Paine had started in England? Three generations would pass before even a small part of the things Paine pleaded for in his book would see fruition. Observed biographer Howard Fast: "Yet one cannot say that the book had no effect. It shook the government; it set thousands of people to thinking. It stirred the currents in what had been placid water, and once stirred, those currents never stilled themselves. And not only in England, but everywhere men longed for freedom, Rights of Man became an inspiration and a hope."

All of Paine's works reflected his belief in natural reason and natural rights, political equality, tolerance, civil liberties, and the dignity of man. (emphasis mine)

Can there be any question that Paine would have enthusiastically approved of what has taken place recently in Egypt and Tunisia?

But we are not England or France.  We are not in a repressive regime in Northern Africa.

Are these times, here in Arizona, that try men's souls?  Or women's or children's?

In the name of God, politicians at the state capitol in Arizona and Congress in DC are working to deprive women of fundamental rights to decisions that each woman must make between herself and her God.  In the name of God, those politicians declare that freedom is only for the privileged, not for all Americans. And that is but two of many issues whereby modern day theocrats are causing frustration and controversy.

Paine, "had a grand vision for society: he was staunchly anti-slavery, and he was one of the first to advocate a world peace organization and social security for the poor and elderly." (from a link provided above).

Perhaps it's time for a refresher course on the philosophical foundation of our great nation.  And the writings of Thomas Paine would be a very good place to start.

It depends on what the meaning of the word "IS" is!

During the first meeting of Arizona's Independent Redistricting Commission last Thursday, Linda McNulty framed questions to the five interviewees by saying that they (the IRC) wanted the public to be proud of both the final product (the district lines/maps) AND the process.

To that end, they voted that day to give themselves some time to reflect on the candidates, their applications and interviews.  So far, so good.  Thoughtfulness and reflection are good things.

The commission reconvened today at 1pm to complete the selection process.  After three people offered public comment (including this blogger), the commission went into executive session, for the apparent purpose of receiving legal counsel.

Emerging an hour and a half later, they promptly -- and without ANY public deliberation -- voted to appoint, by unanimous acclamation, Colleen Mathis to serve as commission chair for the next ten years.

Enter former President Bill Clinton.  "It depends on what the meaning of the word "IS" is."

Consider some of the meanings of the word, "deliberation."

de·lib·er·a·tion  (d-lb-rshn)n.

1. The act or process of deliberating.

2. deliberations Discussion and consideration of all sides of an issue: the deliberations of a jury.

3. Thoughtfulness in decision or action.

4. Leisureliness in motion or manner: The girl stacked the blocks with deliberation.

Following adjournment, the room erupted in a dull roar of many congratulations and handshakes, reporters asking questions of each of the five commissioners, and an undercurrent of concern about the complete absence of public deliberation.

This blogger asked three of the first four commissioners about this issue.

Democrat Jose Herrera flat out (emphatically) denied that ANY deliberation took place during the hour and a half long executive session.  I then asked if the entire time was taken up by the Assistant Attorney General, James E. Barton II, giving them legal advice.  Herrera claimed that was what happened.

Republican Richard Stertz described a process of discussion BY the COMMISSIONERS of each of the candidates.  When asked if that constituted deliberation outside of the public view, he denied it.  Then asked if he cared what the public thought about the fact that the deliberations were done privately, he skillfully danced (verbally) around the question, carefully avoiding any direct answer, though I posed it at least three times.

Democrat Linda McNulty also described deliberations and actually used that very word to describe what they had done.  However, when asked directly, she said that they actually had NOT made their decision about who to vote for until the motion was made to unanimously select Ms. Mathis.

Given that there was literally NO discussion after Ken Bennett struck the gavel to reconvene publicly after the executive session, prior to the motion being voted on, it seems -- on its face -- that the four commissioners DID deliberate behind closed doors for what should have been done in open, public session.

Two attorneys I spoke with gave interesting replies when I asked them about the propriety of the closed deliberations.  One said that he "could make an argument" that the selection of the fifth commissioner was a "personnel decision."  In which case, executive session would be appropriate.  Of course, when an attorney says he "could make an argument," that's a clear indication that the situation is, at best, questionable.

The other attorney expressed the belief that what the IRC had done today was illegal.

Don't get me wrong, Colleen Mathis is, by all observations, a fine person and will likely do well in her role as IRC chair.  However, in light of Commissioner McNulty declaring repeatedly last week her concern that the public be proud of the PROCESS they are about to undertake, the way the commission conducted itself today is a dubious start toward that goal.