Topics in This Issue:
UA Athletics Department Investigation
Puppy Mills
Weekend Events
Midtown Apartments
The Giving Machine
Plastic Blocks
Refugee Needs
Storm 2 Shade
Gun Control and Youth
Video Camera Registry
Operation Freeze
Senior Olympics
Staying in Shape for Non-Seniors
One Water 2100 Master Plan
Reid Park Master Plan
RSV, Flu and COVID Update

UA Athletics Department Investigation
Full disclosure – as I sit here writing this, I’m wearing a Xavier basketball T that Sean Miller sent to me. I like Sean and feel he was done a disservice by the current leadership in both the athletics department and in the UA president’s office. I worked there for 32 years and so may have a bit of a different perspective than some of the sports writers who have been covering the decision on sanctions handed down last week. You can google them in the Star.

Back in ‘20/’21 the UA self-imposed a 1-year post season ban on their basketball team. Star opinion writer Greg Hansen wrote a full column at the time calling it basically a fraud – the season was the COVID season, and any post season would be tainted by the restrictions placed on how the games were played. Plus, the UA was not expected to make a deep run-in post season anyway. Last week he called the self-imposed post season ban “wisely proactive.” That’s a convenient way to stay in the good graces of the current leadership. He should know that they’ll turn on him in a heartbeat the next time he’s critical.

The athletics director (AD) is Dave Heeke. The UA president is Bobby Robbins. During the beginning of the basketball investigation, it was widely reported in the media that the preliminary reports said Heeke and Robbins had ‘compromised the integrity of the investigation.’ And they had drafted ‘talking points’ that ‘demonstrated from the outset a lack of commitment to cooperation and the acceptance of responsibility.’ This was all happening just as the UA athletics department had a football player serving time for assault, a track coach serving time for domestic abuse issues on a former student-athlete, the swimming program was under investigation, the track program was under investigation – and of course the men’s basketball issues. Not only did they ‘compromise the integrity of the investigation,’ they were knee-deep in multiple compliance scandals at the same time. That is what the NCAA generally calls a ‘lack of institutional controls.’

The lay of the land in the athletics department is the compliance office sits directly across the hall from the AD’s office. It’s a 30-second walk when one is summoned. During the multiple investigations that hallway was a well-worn path. If the institution was serious about compliance-related issues, the athletics compliance staff would be located in a completely neutral building, and they would not answer directly to the athletics director or to the UA president. Quite to the contrary at the UA. And that change isn’t likely to happen under the watch of Heeke and Robbins.

I was sorry to see Sean leave under the circumstances that prevailed. The report indicated that it was clear since it took a 2-year FBI investigation to get to the bottom of what happened that Coach Miller had no way of knowing 2 of his coaches had gone rogue. It wasn’t the coach who compromised the investigation. And yet the 2 guys named as having done that are still there, getting contract extensions and raises by the Arizona Board of Regents.

Puppy Mills
In late 2015 I began working with several local animal-loving groups on crafting a local puppy mill ordinance. The intent was to ban retail sales of puppies unless they were sourced from shelters. Puppy mills over-breed females to the point that many die from the stress. The offspring are kept by the hundreds in unsanitary and inhumane conditions. Here’s one example – sadly among many nationwide.

We had the ordinance adopted but at the time we passed it the city of Phoenix had a very similar one on the books that were being challenged in court. The owner of their retail store, Frank Mineo also owned a retail pet store in Tucson. He was making a full-court press to get the state to disallow local ordinances. He lobbied hard enough and the state ended up passing a pre-emption bill that Ducey signed in 2016. Our puppy mill ordinance could not go into effect.

The bill crafted by Mineo and his puppy mill supporters in the state legislature did include some requirements for retail stores if they were to sell dogs. Those include posting a clear label on each cage that identifies where the dog was sourced from. I continue to work closely with animal rights advocates both here in Tucson and up in Phoenix. They are out regularly monitoring pet stores to assure compliance.

Back in 2020 the group I’ve been involved with met several times, trying to get the attention of law enforcement both in Tucson and in Phoenix about what we suspected were clear violations of the state statute. It didn’t rise to any level of importance to local law enforcement, so I asked some Tucson constables to help by traveling to Phoenix and securing documents at one of their stores. Long story short – they got documents but since they were ‘out of their jurisdiction’ I couldn’t use any of the information. While all of that was going on advocates from both Tucson and Phoenix continued pestering the AG’s office, trying to alert them to the clear violations. All of that work finally bore fruit last week when AG Brnovich issued a complaint through his consumer fraud division against Companion Pets, Inc – the controlling arm for both online sales and sales at retail stores such as Puppies ‘N Love and Animal Kingdom.

The complaint calls them out for selling dogs that are sourced from out-of-state puppy mills. In total, they’ve been selling about 6,000 dogs per year, and they go for around $2,000 each. Even Brnovich’s Release said of CPI “It gets most of its dogs through out-of-state breeders and brokers.” Many of us told them that 3 years ago. But we’re pleased to finally get this acted on.

The state will require CPI to pay $120,000 which will be used for restitution to customers who have been affected by their sourcing practices. To qualify for the restitution you must have (a) purchased a puppy from an Animal Kingdom or Puppies ‘N Love store – or from https://www.animalkingdomaz.com/ online – between January 1st, 2017 and December 31st, 2022; (b) that you made the purchase in Arizona, or were living in Arizona at the time of the purchase, (c) and that you file a complaint with the Attorney General’s office within 120 days after the court signs the order. That’s expected to happen around mid-April 2023. Your complaint will need to detail any false promises, misrepresentations or unfair acts or practices related to the CPI transaction. Not posting the true sourcing of the purchased pet is one example.

Click here to Read More Information About City Of Tucson A Message From Steve K Newsletter - December 19, 2022