In her own defense

Governor Napolitano responds to Republican legislative leaders in today's 'My Turn' column at the Republic. It's long on text but short on actual points. By my count, there are only two.

The first is that Republican leadership is 'stuck':

Yet, Republican legislative leadership is stuck. Over the past several weeks, Senate President Ken Bennett and House Speaker Jim Weiers have focused on name-calling and on accusations of broken trust.

The second is a complete evasion of the argument's central point; did the Governor know or did she not, that the agreed-upon bills were changed? The Governor completely side-steps it with her 'defense': Allow me to be clear: If there was a breakdown of trust, it occurred on both sides of the budget negotiation. When I come to an agreement, I expect all of the agreement to be adhered to, not just parts of it.

And while leadership and I may disagree on the details of that final budget discussion, we must agree that we have all been elected to serve the people of Arizona and that we have an obligation to uphold that duty.

She's substituted deflection for reflection. One sentence--in a roughly 500-word piece--addresses the breakdown, and it's a throw-away: If there was a breakdown of trust...!?

Her critics have laid out a fairly good case for their argument that she knew what was coming to her desk and offered no hint that such represented an unacceptable change to the agreement. A case that is not at all refuted by any of the folks who've tried, nor by the Governor herself in today's piece.

Until and unless she can counter the point that her representative George Cunningham signed off on the bills on her behalf during the negotiation process, she is the one who is stuck. Stuck having to address the issue of broken trust. At this point, assuming today's response is any indication, she is not willing to do so.

She is right to want to press on and continue working. I acknowledge that; we don't pay the Governor and the Legislature to sit around and argue. However, when the state's chief executive appears to veto part of a compromise agreement on a whim, legitimate questions of trust come up!