Why is it even up to the likes of Sanchez, Lopez, and Peercy?

Each of these three has simply decided that robust ethics reform will not be discussed.

Senator Michael Sanchez has decided that robust ethics reform
will not be discussed in the State Senate.

Senator Linda Lopez has decided that robust ethics reform
will not be discussed in the state Senate Rules Committee, and
by extension, anywhere else in the people's house.

APS Board Member David Peercy has decided that
robust ethics reform will not be heard in the APS Policy Committee, and by extension, anywhere else in the APS.


The terms of public in-servitude are the prerogative
of the public, and not of the public servant.

When it was decided that a republican form of government was
better than a pure democracy, the founding fathers had no idea
what kind of people would come to represent
the peoples interests in their government.

They were men of character, and courage, and honor,
in a time that placed a premium on character, and on courage,
and on honor.

It did not occur to them that their beloved republic would
grow into a good ol' boy oligarchy,
beholden to the public interest, only when it suits their interests.

Had they been able to look into the future,
they would have built in protection against it.

They would have provided the people with some manner of
holding public servants honestly accountable for their conduct
and competence as public servants.

It was not their intention to create what they have created.

We will have to go outside the envelope of protection
that the founding fathers provided for us.

This cannot be fixed from within the system.

It can be fixed by torches and pitchforks,
and by nothing else. It is the only manner by which
tyrants have ever been overthrown,
and it is the only manner by which they ever will.

You can't beat them in their yard.