You mean “Tucson Mutual Congratulations Coalition”?

(TMCC)

Not sure who “Cloth” is- but I have a feeling it is someone who has not been able to earn enough positive attention or respect from the people who have been honored by the Chamber.

This is a time to say congrats not to carp about them.

At least they did not give it to Bob Walkup !!!!

From the Star comment section:

5. Comment by joe b. (joeblanco) — January 6,2009 @ 4:09PM
Ratings: -0 +2

Our community loves to give itself awards. We would give out awards for best looking life preserver while the Titanic was sinking!
We need to change our way we do business in this town. Our local governments are very unfriendly to small business.(very friendly to the Don Diamonds and TEPs,though) Our public education is in a shambles. Our crime statistics are off the chart.

Giving awards to people like this who take advantage of the confused electeds to provide a general malaise in Pima County(which only benefits the few)is a great injustice. But that’s typical of the schmucks at the TMCC.

Report this comment

Sour Grapes: So it’s okay to criticize Bob Walkup but not Larry Hecker? All right, whatever.

What seems to have happened the last two years is that the Man of the Year honorees are treated as if they are selfless community activists, sacrificing their own prosperity, career aspirations, reputation, or time for the public good. In the case of last year’s winner, he is paid by Tucson Electric Power to infiltrate organizations and influence how those organizations operate and how they interact with government. It’s his job to go to meetings for groups like TREO, the Redistricting Commission, and the Tucson Downtown Partnership. TEP wants him to be involved, so he can spread TEP’s influence. When has Mr. Lynn stood up for the citizens, voters, taxpayers, small businesses, electric rate-payers (!), or spoken truth to power? When has he used his position in all these organizations to take a tough stand, to say what needs to be said while other more timid individuals bite their tongue, or to argue forcefully for a just but perhaps unpopular cause?

In the case of this year’s winner, we have an attorney who is involved in all the same causes and organizations that Lynn is. He doesn’t work for a company that expects him to spread the company’s influence, but he does work for clients who pay him because he is perceived to be influential. Influential he may be, but again, to what aim?

He’s been quoted many times in the Arizona Daily Star this year about downtown. But when has he said anything that would give the City Manager heartburn? Never. When has he said anything that would make Nina Trasoff consider finding another campaign treasurer? Never. When has he stood up for the building owners or businesses in downtown? The owner in downtown that he’s stood up for is the demonstrably corrupt Doug Kennedy. The fact is, he doesn’t use his considerable public standing to do anything but the bidding of the City Manager, the Ward 6 Council Member, and his developer clients. The more committees like Yes on RTA that he chairs, the more his “influence” becomes self-perpetuating. He gets appointed because he’s influential, and he’s influential because he’s on all these committees. The more committees like Yes on RTA or the County Bond Committee that he sits on, the more clients he can pick up.

I’m sure he’s not such a bad guy, but let’s not turn influence-peddling into a civic virtue with these awards.

Clothcutter, I’ll give you a hug.

Ok “Watchdog” I have to give you props for providing some food for thought.

IMHO what we have with many of these organizations is a propensity to pick people that have provided financial support and participation. It also insures their continued financial involvement. I doubt the Chamber has ever picked a person for “Man or Woman of the Year” who has not been a chamber member or otherwise supported financially their objectives.

Same with the Father of the Year awards. That organization picks the good old boys who have money. Few know that for the honor of getting that award they require a fundraising commitment from the family and friends of the honoree-raise 40 K for the event. It is a money game. That is why the only fathers you see are the local celebrity or money guys.

I digress, back to the Chamber- add to the fact that there is alot of talk about some people who want to see Camper replaced- that will insure
people in his camp will make sure this years picks are powerful enough to be able to watch his back.

So given what I firmly believe is the hidden agenda these are perfect picks.
It is not about finding the Father of the Year or Man of the Year, Woman of the Year…It is about money and courtship of the money.

I agree with you, Sour Grapes.

What I think most people find objectionable about these sorts of awards is the gratuitousness of it. It’s the same people recognizing the same people. I know of several people who have won these sorts of awards who are then asked to choose (or are the initiators of choosing) the award winners of another luncheon/awards show. It all gets very incestuous.

One prominent Hispanic businesswoman I know who has been asked to play this game finds it all distasteful, while another individual with a similar demographic profile revels in the networking of it all.

Another aspect of this awards luncheon phenomenon is that they’ve proliferated as a way for the organizations that sponsor them to make money.

Women of Influence, Man of the Year, State of the City, State of the County, etc.—they’re all ways for the organizations that sponsor them to appear to be important, but also for them to make money.

A better idea for doing these events is to have all or some of the proceeds benefit a charity of the choice of the winners. And it would have to be a real charity, not just a non-profit like TREO or the Chamber. This might be an incentive to hold fewer of these events, and not encourage them to continue to invent excuses to get together and honor the same people.

On the other hand, many of these luncheons give the community a chance to experience first-hand the terrible food at the Tucson Convention Center.

We also lost the LPGA golf tournament due to lack of support.

We lost USA Baseball.

We lost the Arizona Heat women’s softball franchise, and several minor-league hockey franchises—Gila Monsters, Scorch, and others.

We are in danger of losing the $100 million impact of the Gem Shows.

Some of these losses are due to the complacency of our leaders, elected and administrative. Some of it can be ascribed to our puny tax base and disposable income relative to our population.

Either way, our leaders are in denial.

I was once involved with the nominating committee for an award that was given over several years, sponsored by a prominent Tucson organization. Our committee solicited nominations, came up with our own, and recommended a winner to the CEO of the organization. For a while this worked fine, as the CEO accepted each recommendation.

Then one year the CEO decided to pass on our recommended winner and instead chose a local business owner with well-known ties to the “cronysphere” of local government. This person’s one accomplishment, other than being the recipient of many government contracts because of his close relationships with the above, was to spawn a well-known elected official.

Soon after, our committee dissolved. I think there was one more recommendation (accepted by the CEO) and one more award, but then that was it. It wasn’t that we didn’t recognize the CEO’s prerogative to make the final decision on the award winners, it was disgust with the actual selection that was made and the obvious reasons behind it. The CEO and his organization have discontinued that award since.

That’s a pretty good place to start.

Sam, it’s not about the UA losing a football game. I assume you only moved here in the last year or so, because we used to host the Copper/Insight bowl here in Tucson for years. It was an actual generator of revenue at a time of the year when the hotels, restaurants and attractions are in great need of it. So it was big loss to the our economy, not the UA’s bowl record.

As for the visitors bureau, they are a $9 million plus organization with no visible means of accountability. If you are member of the tourism community whose existence is helped or hurt by the visitors bureau’s marketing efforts, then maybe I could accept your support of them. Sad to say, you sound like someone who has sat through on the Bureau’s Powerpoint “dog and pony show” and read through the glossy annual report(and ate it up). A report that never mentions downturns or upturns compared to other markets(then compare the downturns and upturns with the level of taxpayer supported $). They also show you the ADR, REV PAR and occupancy levels rising since 2001. No crud, almost every destination is up since 9/11! Also, follow the lack of bed tax collections starting in the last couple of years and really see their accomplishments.

Education: Yes, they are a few diamonds(pardon the pun) in the rough out there(Vail and especially Flowing Wells). The big ones (TUSD, Sunnyside and Amphi) have long,uphill battle ahead.

I am glad you are proud of those special events. They are all great events and need our support. They also need our efforts to expand them, especially Tucson Meet Yourself. Over the last 10 years, these are survivors of a list of special events that have gone away. Sad to say, only Gem Show and Rodeo brings a good amount of outside visitors.

Sam, keep reading and thanks for high-CALIBER comments. There must be a balance of support and vigilance. Blindly supporting leaders in our community with poor track records will surely lead Tucson to ruin.