A1: "County workers keep buildings looking good"

I remember doing a story a lot like this for my high-school paper about our custodial department. Paula Rhoden gets the byline, but this is another in what we can expect will be a regular series of utterly uncritical features that could have been written by departmental PR flaks. Again we learn nothing about the quality or relative value of the services we're all paying for.

I've dealt with Pat Kirshman professionally, and the sooner he shuffles off to obscurity the better I'll like it. There's plenty of stink to investigate here.

A3: "Copper Basin Road project, water availability top agenda "

Another regular Monday agenda story from Cindy Barks. If there's going to be no analysis or background to the issues that the councils and boards are preparing to discuss, it seems to me that this sort of information would be easier to access in a regular, dependable notice box shared by the various government authorities. Consider how the agenda information can best serve the voter, and what the paper could include to facilitate and encourage public participation.

Update, 9:47: Page number corrected, thanks Jared.

A1: "Group recreates war for History Channel"

Joanna Dodder has a little wander through Prescott history to pad out a puffer about our local military dress-up club. I suppose it's no surprise that she doesn't mention the actual subject of the documentary, America's first unprovoked, aggressive war of expansion and conquest.

Talk of the Town: "Compassion for day laborers has its limits"

Dan Pederson makes some good points about what it's like for the business neighbors, and writes with some intelligence and sensitivity. Overall I think he's got the wrong end of the stick, though. Do the would-be workers deserve the blame, or should we be looking more closely at ourselves for creating the conditions that force them into an underground economy? Are we looking at causes here, or consequences?

There's another response to Dennis Duvall in the letters section, too.

Editorial: "Hambrick's actions don't pass smell test"

The unnamed Courier editor crawls further out on his limb, trying to get the rope in the right position to hang Vic Hambrick. This follows up on his May 8 offering, "Link with Townsend doesn't pass 'smell test'," demonstrating a stunning level of creativity with headlines, if nothing else. (I know, I used it too -- but only once, and first.)

Just to sum up one more time: Hambrick may be as dirty as the editor seems to think, but so far he hasn't shown us the goods on that, and for that reason I think the editor is way ahead of himself on calling for the assessor's removal by whatever means. The Courier also took a position against Hambrick in his election, and that should be mentioned. By using the editorial page in this unwise manner, the paper has made itself part of a story that could unfairly damage professional reputations and erode confidence in elected officials. Whatever the underlying truth is, more care is warranted here.

A3: "Supervisors to discuss budget, centennial, Prop. 207"

Uh-huh, here it comes. The Supes will be voting on a new policy of backing off from any land-use regulation if the landowner threatens to sue for compensation under Prop 207 rules. This will effectively prevent any land-use regulation change that does not favor development. And who was the local mouthpiece for this touch of evil bought and paid for by radical New York libertarian Howie Rich? The Queen Bee herself, that's who. Why can't the Courier say so?

A1: "Adult Center scrambles to meet high demand"

Sometimes I feel like I'm looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Cindy Barks tells us -- first time I've read this, as far as I can recall -- that the 'ultimate goal' for membership in the Adult Center has been about 1,000. Yikes, for all the money and hassle the City has pumped into that facility, it ought to be serving a whole lot more people than that! I'm all for public partnerships with nonprofits, but Adult Center has historically been afforded sacred-cow status that deserves a little more skeptical inspection.

Outside the body copy: The headline hints that the new name for the place isn't sticking, and somebody please get control of the captions!

A1: "Water, sewer rates will not increase next fiscal year"

Here's the followup on the meeting previewed on May 16. Turns out staff decided to hold the line on rates. Hmmm. It feels like something's missing here, but it's probably inside stuff between Council and staff.

A1: Photo radar

PV declares victory with its Glassford Hill gauntlet, and Ken Hedler covers it in a three-angle feature here and here. Chunks of this are clouds of numbers that might have been better done as comparison tables, so it's a bit of a challenge to sort out.

What Ken's focusing on is all pretty obvious -- it's no surprise that people learn where the cameras are and change their behavior accordingly.

I've been hoping that the Courier would provide a little transparency on the corporate side of this system, though, and here I'm largely disappointed. We get a per-ticket rate of $70 and a total of 97K-odd bucks that PV has sent to Redflex so far, but no overall income number for comparison. Ken also describes Redflex as "Scottsdale-based," which is plain wrong -- it has a satellite operation in Scottsdale, but it's based in Australia, and some voters might consider that significant. This gives me some pause about whether to trust the rest of Ken's coverage.

Letters: More on prop tax-dodging

Marian Littel gives us a little more (couldn't resist, sorry) on the tricks available to large property owners for paying less than their fair share. Interesting, and yet another gift to the Courier editors that so far goes unaccepted.

Kamin: "Ron Paul was right, Rudy was wrong"

It's getting to be that I look forward to John K's columns. I'm not sure that the headline was the best choice, but the piece is good stuff, and not just because I happen to agree with his points, but rather that they're made with precision and strength, and a voter might profit from reading them.

Talk of the Town: "CPA stands up for Hambrick, Townsend"

Vic Hambrick's accountant is annoyed that he's being implicated in alleged hanky-panky, and barks back, at one point comparing the Courier's research skills unfavorably with those of a fifth-grader and its reporters of a certain lack of sense. He goes on to ask some pointed questions about how this story has been covered. In case you're keeping score, here are some answers.

"ROI Land Management & Development Company owes her $295,000." Did your reporter verify this statement or ask to see a copy of the note or agreement?

This refers to the May 6 story, and Joanna's balancer came in the same paragraph: "He denies owing her any money." That was the end of it, no mention of proof. Is that the reporter's job? It may be, when they're already stringing you up on the editorial page.

"Did your reporter question how the transfer of real property could have anything to do with solving anyone's tax problem? Or did they confirm Victor Hambrick even had a tax problem before printing this statement?

There's no telling what questions Joanna asked, but there is certainly no answer to this in any of her stories. This was an allegation made by Townsend, though, not the Courier. Should the Courier have printed it without followup or fact-checking?

I also notice that he has to do this on the opinion page, rather than have his viewpoint and assertions of innocence covered in the original story.

It's exactly this sort of sticky complexity that keeps most papers away from investigative work, and I don't mean to criticize Joanna or the editors for going after the story, that's a good thing. You have to mind your Ps and Qs, though. If this accountant really is innocent -- and everyone is until proved guilty, right? -- the Courier may have unfairly screwed up his business and professional reputation. We'll see as the story continues to develop what's just. What we know so far is that the Courier's actions have made it an important part of the story, always a dangerous play for the press.

A1: "Six new roundabouts up for review"

It seems the roundabout idea is working just fine after all. I seem to recall that the Courier, along with a horde of letter-writers, predicted a massive failure back when this was approved. Anyone got a relevant link?

A1: "Chamber opposes sales tax initiative"

Dave Maurer is a pretty smart guy, and knows a boondoggle when he sees one. I'll bet the unnamed Courier editor would not have imagined that he'd wind up on the other side of the issue from the CofC when he rashly wrote in support of the initiative to kill off funding for open space back on April 18.

I love this bit at the end: "... the Chamber suggested that the city, the initiative group, and other interested parties get together to "develop a plan that can be supported by everyone."" That's exactly what Norwood should have got in gear as soon as he heard that Behnke was out for bear -- and you can bet he heard about it long before the initiative effort started.

A1: "Henson gets another stay in Arizona as he fights extradition"

I understand that lawyers have to make whatever argument might work, but I can't see how Henson's lawyer is doing anything useful with this desperate rearguard action that sacrifices his client's credibility.

This is a low-level international story taking place in our jail, and there's a local angle to it that the Courier has so far missed or skipped over, in that there are widely circulated allegations that Henson is being mistreated in the YavCo jail, including denial of necessary medications and impeding contact with legal counsel. Whether any of this is true or not, it's at least a factor in the story that deserves reporting and at worst an issue with our local authorities that needs fixing.

Editorial: "'Just showing up' offers ample rewards"

Yeah, yeah, it's wonderful that a kid decides to go to school every day. Does anyone else think that giving a 15-year-old a car is a bizarre indulgence?

A1: "State is looking into assessor dealings"

Joanna Dodder adds a sighting of AG Terry Goddard to the Hambrick story, along with something from the Arizona Department of Real Estate, indicating that state-level officials are looking into it. Most of the body copy is review, but there's a stronger track on how Vic thinks land changes value depending on whether he's buying it or selling it. OK, we all do that, but we're not all the assessor.

Editorial: "New teen driving law is a good move"

The unnamed editor makes a good call and writes an informative piece about the new law. I'm afraid I missed the bit where the editors urged legislators to carry and support the bill while it was in process. What other good in-process bills might deserve support when it could make a difference? Leaving out the Paris Hilton bill, of course.

Talk of the Town: "Data leads to new inconvenient truth"

Terry Lovell is back with a flailing response to actual climate scientist Tim Crews, whom we read last week in this space. Lovell's original piece came in on April 15.

Lovell's arguments blather for themselves -- he maintains cluelessness about the carbon cycle, for example. My question is this: OK, we're having a real debate on the editorial page -- why did the first piece sit for a month unanswered, while the redirect comes out in a week? It's perfectly plausible that Crews took a while to get around to it (I wouldn't be surprised if he's busier than Lovell at work), but it's also plausible that it sat on the spike for a while. Just askin'.

Update, 7:15pm: Ever wonder where this stuff comes from?

Kamin: "Arsenic: How Bush and Clinton left Prescott holding the bag"

A big cookie and latte for John Kamin, who's done some homework and come up with a solid think piece on the arsenic problem. Go, read. Now, will this make it into print?

Update, 8:20: Link fixed, thanks, John!