Naturally enough for a candidate who'd been a registered Republican just days before filing to run, Margarite Dale seemed more interested in helping her GOP rivals than winning one for Ralph Nader. Dale got initial contributions from the families of her supposed Republican opponents, Jim Weiers and Doug Quelland. Records show that she then hired a Republican strategist, Shane Wikfors. (Yes, he's the same guy who runs one of the Valley's most popular conservative blogs, www.sonoranalliance.com.)

Was Margarite Dale's candidacy a Republican dirty trick, designed to strip away votes from incumbent Democrat Jackie Thrasher? Duh!

Michael "Boo" Booher with a young partygoer. For some reason, no one at City Hall found this photo disturbing.
Performance Photographx
Michael "Boo" Booher with a young partygoer. For some reason, no one at City Hall found this photo disturbing.

Related Content

More About

Like this Story?

Sign up for the Weekly Newsletter: Our weekly feature stories, movie reviews, calendar picks and more - minus the newsprint and sent directly to your inbox.

Privacy Policy

But the Dale matter is a mere sideshow to the real scandal in District 10.

Dale, Thrasher, and Republican candidate Doug Quelland all opted to run under Arizona's Clean Elections system. That means they got tens of thousands of dollars in public funds for their campaigns in exchange for agreeing to certain rules. They couldn't raise money on their own after an initial startup period. And they couldn't exceed spending limits by spending extra money on the side.

It's increasingly clear that Doug Quelland did just that.

Todd Lang, executive director of the Clean Elections Commission, wrote an excellent 16-page report on just this subject. Lang found probable cause that Quelland had violated several state laws, recommending fines as high as $46,000. If the commission agrees that Quelland violated the laws in question, it could also vote to remove him from office.

According to Lang's report, in March 2007, Quelland hired Larry Davis and his company, Intermedia Public Relations, as campaign consultants. Quelland agreed to pay the company $15,000 in monthly installments.

That $15,000 never showed up on Quelland's campaign finance report.

Davis blew the whistle after Quelland's victory, saying that Quelland exceeded spending limits by paying him under the table. But Quelland's lawyer denied that Davis had been hired for political work. He also told the commission that Davis ought to have to produce checks.

"Mr. Quelland has to be free from having to prove a negative," attorney Lee Miller argued.

Davis didn't have documentation. But when the Clean Elections Commission subpoenaed Quelland's bank records, go figure, they found evidence of the payments that Davis had described. Davis was paid $7,000 through January 2008. (After that, Quelland allowed him free rent in a strip mall he owned, in exchange for another six months of services.)

None of that — either the $7,000 in checks or the $6,000 rent giveaway — showed up in Quelland's campaign finance reports.

The commission heard Todd Lang's recommendations last Thursday. In almost every instance of disciplinary action I've examined, the commission has followed Lang's recommendations on the spot.

But this time, they failed to act.

They said they couldn't tell who's telling the truth. They'll have to revisit the matter at a future meeting.

I couldn't attend the meeting. (I was over at City Hall, watching the city of Phoenix drop the ball on the Marr warehouse. So many scandals, so little time.) But sources in attendance tell me that Quelland basically filibustered the commission, rambling on for at least an hour without effectively refuting any of Lang's findings.

Who needs evidence when you have blather?

My sources urged me to be kind to the Clean Elections Commission. They say that Quelland took up so much time that everyone's heads were spinning. I can only hope that they're right — that fatigue, not confusion, kept the commission from following through.

Because, trust me, ...you don't need a lie detector to figure this one out. You just need common sense.

It's a cliché, but an absolutely accurate one: The truthful story is always the simple one. Doug Quelland hired Larry Davis to be his campaign consultant, then paid him for the work under the table. Davis blew the whistle. End of the story.

Contrast that with Doug Quelland's version of the story, according to his deposition. Two days after Quelland hired Larry Davis to run his campaign, Quelland claims, he fired him. Supposedly, Davis wanted to trash Quelland's opponent, Jackie Thrasher, and Quelland just didn't like that.

Now, the contract between Quelland and Davis had called for Davis to get certain payments if he was terminated. Quelland never made those payments.

So how to explain the lack of a termination payment — and the ongoing monthly checks?

This one is a doozy. According to Quelland, just after he fired Davis as a campaign worker, he hired him to promote his Phoenix coffee shop, Q's Coffee Bar. And he just happened to pay him exactly the same price they'd previously agreed upon for the political work. What a coincidence!

Naturally, hearing a story that implausible, Clean Elections staffers investigated a little bit more. According to Lang's report, staff learned that, after he was supposedly "fired" by Quelland's campaign, Larry Davis ordered campaign T-shirts that said "VOTE QUELLAND" and paid for them with campaign money.

Also, after its supposed termination, Davis' company created Quelland's campaign Web site.

And went to campaign meetings with state GOP officials.

And organized fundraising "community breakfasts."

Of course Quelland had an explanation, right? Hold your breath . . .

The guy that Quelland fired had chosen to return to the campaign as a volunteer.

<< Previous Page | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next Page >>
 
  • skrillex 10/01/2009 8:09:00 PM

    you are correct on mostly everything you have said, yet maybe instead of making the rave scene look bad, why dont you just work on making raves 16+ instead of little kids going which pisses me off as well, go after does child mulesters but not the rave scene, some and hopefully all teens go to raves for the music but dont try and get it shut down in AZ..

  • Eric Thomas 05/24/2009 2:54:00 AM

    So they let the monkey back on the keyboard and she typed out another fantastic tail. Im wondering where is the flying dragon and the knight that goes to slay him? You seem to be creative enough, maybe the National Enquirer would be best suited for this reporter. I wish this was an article that I could analyze, pull apart, and debate the things wrong with this article but it would be a lot like making a replica of the Eiffel tower out of tooth picks and glue, not really worth anyone's time in the end. So I can't wait till Sarah tells us the story of the corrupt government taking paycheck from the cartel and using it to fight puppies.

  • John Nagy 05/13/2009 8:04:00 PM

    The Pawns think their kings.. It is not too late friend. Not all the money has been put in the right places. Some ones conscience is waning. Find them mr. writer man. I still believe.

  • Rick Barrs speaks from his ass 05/12/2009 3:06:00 PM

    Why is it everyone keeps trying to say he was running these events? He was building management he made sure things ran smoothly if the police spoke to him it's because any event whether it be a club or major venue they ask to speak to the building manager and the promoter. The PROMOTER is the one running the event. I don't see how it is that difficult for reporters to grasp that concept? Then again anyone who works for the New Times can't be considered a real reporter to begin with so I in all seriousness canceled out that question. Obviously anyone that goes to jail has a chance to relapse? Not everyone is like that but then again society is so close minded and blind they can't see three feet past their nose. If you're going to expose one person why not expose the others? Like certain DJs that like underage girls but have never gone to jail or certain promoters? Yet none of them get plastered up here the new times has even written pieces on events these people have done and or played at. The New Times has been and always will be Helens bitch.

  • Joseph 05/12/2009 3:06:00 AM

    I think it's funny that over half of my original post is suddenly missing, Here it is again. Once again, you have to read from bottom to top since it was through email.... That actually wasn't the point, it was only a small portion of the article, and it definitely wasn't the reason the event was shut down. Also, it was his venue, but he was not "running" the event, that's the job of the production crew (which, btw, I am a part of). It's obvious to me why you are trying so hard to avoid my very direct question and I at least respect the fact that you'd rather avoid the subject than lie to me. I know what happened and I'm willing to leave it at that. I'm glad you exposed Boo because something could have happened and that's not a risk I'm willing to take part in. The motivations for the article are clear though. Hopefully you won't write such biased material in the future! If for some reason your writers do happen to write an article as a favor to someone again they should really try and leave out the fact that they have such a strong relationship with that person. It only makes you look biased as a source and hurts your credibility. Over and out to you too. Peace, love, and light!!! --- Rick Barrs wrote: > well, if you read it, then you know that the point > was that a sex offender was running the rave in > question. i'm not sure where sarah fenske came upon > that fact, but it was in the public's interest to > report it. come on, do you condone what he did to > wind up in prison? and can you honestly say that a > guy like that should be hanging around young > teen-agers? take a look at the photo accompanying > the article. over and out. > > >>> Joseph Martin 10/26/07 > 7:57 PM >>> > lol... I did read the entire article, actually I've > read it a couple times. DID YOU EVEN READ WHAT I > WROTE? ( get > your attention in case your giving me some > manufactured response that you've given to everyone > else since it doesn't seem you read what I wrote) I > never mentioned one thing about the rave scene. > Also, > I certainly never suggested that Helen paid you to > write the story. I did question whether or not she > asked you to do the story. Here, let me quote > exactly > what I wrote to make it easier for you "I never > said, > suggested, or even thought that Helen paid you, I do > feel that she asked you and because of her > relationship with the newspaper (which was also > referenced numerous times in the article) your > newspaper agreed." Obviously there is a reason for > concern since you mentioned several other people > have > written you about the same thing. That's great that > you informed everyone about Boo's past, I'm sure > that > now that people know that they won't work with him > anymore. What relevance that has to my question, I'm > still not really sure. I really don't know why > you're > being so evasive and defensive about answering a > simple question. > > --- Rick Barrs wrote: > > > listen, i already said 'of course not.' we don't > get > > paid by the subjects of stories. your ignorance > > about the situation is obvious. did you even read > > the story? did you note that this guy 'boo' is a > > registered sex offender (he likes for little girls > > to piss on his ball sack), and that he's running > > raves that allow underage kids? that's the point, > > not your rave scene going under. try actually > > reading the whole article, so you can make an > > intelligent point. if you can't do that, shut up. > > > > >> Joseph Martin > 10/26/2007 > > 4:19 PM >>> > > I didn't use any other identity, and by me > replying > > to > > your email you should be able to see my last name > by > > now (I know I see it in the body of your > response). > > Regardless of what your suspicions are, that is no > > reason to act in the unprofessional manner that > you > > have. Telling someone to shut up is pretty hostile > > and > > rude, especially when I never accused you of > > anything, > > but instead posed it as a question. I never said, > > suggested, or even thought that Helen paid you, I > do > > feel that she asked you and because of her > > relationship with the newspaper (which was also > > referenced numerous times in the article) your > > newspaper agreed. I would also like it noted that > I > > did not originally present this as an accusation, > > but > > posed it as a question. Also, what's with the name > > calling? Don't you think that's a little > > unprofessional for an entity that's so visible to > > the > > public?.... btw, if you really want to verify my > > identity (and to prove I'm not a "coward") my # is > > 6023990106. Also, if you need both a first and > last > > name to receive a response you should probably say > > that on the site. I was never trying to be > evasive, > > I > > just didn't know it was required. So, now that you > > have the "required information", did Helen ASK you > > to > > write this article? I don't know if you'll even > give > > me an honest answer at this point considering your > > level of professionalism so far, but I figure it's > > worth asking. Maybe that way you can gain back at > > least a little of your integrity. > > --- Rick Barrs wrote: > > > > > here's the same response i sent to one of your > > other > > > identities. > > > > > > so is your name j > > by > > > helen hestenes. come clean on your identity, > > coward. > > > your question is absurd. of course not. for > > letters > > > to the editor, i need full names, even though i > > know > > > people are much braver when they are anonymous. > > > gimme your phone number, too, so i can confirm > > that > > > you actually sent this, whoever you are. > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Joseph Martin > > 10/26/2007 > > > 1:42 PM >>> > > > LMFAO!!! That's funny, I take it by your > hostility > > > that means yes. I don't see how signing my first > > and > > > last name has any relevance to the question, so > I > > > don't know why that would matter. What a coward > > she > > > is > > > and what puppets you all are for doing that. > > That's > > > fine though because karma will take care of it. > I > > > used > > > to respect the New Times because of the risqu�> > > articles you wrote exposing corruption and what > > not, > > > but you just single handedly ruined the papers > > > credibility with me by your response. SHADY!!!! > > > Don't > > > worry, I'll make sure to spread the word!! ;) > > > > > > > > > --- Rick Barrs wrote: > > > > > > > sign your name, or shut up. nobody cares what > > > > anonymous chickens have to > > > > say. > > > > > > > > >>> Joseph 10/25/2007 > > 1:40 > > > > AM >>> > > > > > > > > SENT FROM: > > > > phoenixnewtimes.com > > > > > > > > DATE/TIME: > > > > October 25, 2007, 1:40 am MST > > > > > > > > SUBJECT: > > > > Boo's Warehouse > > > > > > > > LETTER: > > > > So, did Helen ask you to write the article or > > > what? > > > > Seems kinda odd how > > > > the article seems to glorify not only the > venue, > > > but > > > > the relationship > > > > between the Icehouse and the New Times. > > > > > > > > PERSONAL INFO: > > > > Joseph > > > >

  • Joseph 05/11/2009 10:10:00 PM

    Just so everyone can see the original intention of the original article that was written about "Boo". Here is the conversation I had with "Rick Barrs" of the New Times in reference to the original 2007 article. You have to read the comments from top to bottom since this was originally an email. The original article was written after Bloodfest 07 was shut down by the fire marshall for occupancy violations after a call from the owner of the Icehouse. Ironically enough Helen, the owner of the Icehouse, continually violated the maximum occupancy in her venue for years before she got Boo's shut down.... That actually wasn't the point, it was only a small portion of the article, and it definitely wasn't the reason the event was shut down. Also, it was his venue, but he was not "running" the event, that's the job of the production crew (which, btw, I am a part of). It's obvious to me why you are trying so hard to avoid my very direct question and I at least respect the fact that you'd rather avoid the subject than lie to me. I know what happened and I'm willing to leave it at that. I'm glad you exposed Boo because something could have happened and that's not a risk I'm willing to take part in. The motivations for the article are clear though. Hopefully you won't write such biased material in the future! If for some reason your writers do happen to write an article as a favor to someone again they should really try and leave out the fact that they have such a strong relationship with that person. It only makes you look biased as a source and hurts your credibility. Over and out to you too. Peace, love, and light!!! --- Rick Barrs wrote: well, if you read it, then you know that the point was that a sex offender was running the rave in question. i'm not sure where sarah fenske came upon that fact, but it was in the public's interest to report it. come on, do you condone what he did to wind up in prison? and can you honestly say that a guy like that should be hanging around young teen-agers? take a look at the photo accompanying the article. over and out. _____________________________________________________ Joseph Martin 10/26/07 7:57 PM >>> lol... I did read the entire article, actually I've read it a couple times. DID YOU EVEN READ WHAT I WROTE? (>> SENT FROM: phoenixnewtimes.com DATE/TIME: October 25, 2007, 1:40 am MST ___________________________________________________________ SUBJECT: Boo's Warehouse LETTER: So, did Helen ask you to write the article or what? Seems kinda odd how the article seems to glorify not only the venue, but the relationship between the Icehouse and the New Times.

  • William Crum 05/10/2009 1:43:00 AM

    I love the article and I hate to write but you told them that it is going to happen. It might happen to a relatives of the ones complaining about you and we will change their tune but it will be too late. All tigers don't change their spots and will return to bad habits. I too am warning about things that will happen and the city will be liable along with paying out money. Close down the clubs and look for a better ways for our kids to have fun. As for the Q man, he might want to retire and blend back into society but out of making decisions affecting the state and its people.

  • Hacked 05/09/2009 8:09:00 PM

    This article is another example of how trashy the PNT has become..pure tabloid journalism, no better than The Enquirer. The articles are a string of "wow look at this" or "hey did you hear that" innuendos and happenstances. Is there an interview with Malcolm Marr or "Boo" anywhere? Is there an interview with any official representative of the police or city? Is there any genuine quote attributed to someone of authority beyond innuendos. No..because it is much easier to accuse people than to interview them. No wonder the bums prefer PNT; its perfect to wipe their asses!

  • Equity Court Services of Arizo 05/09/2009 11:23:00 AM

    What a joke. You people are so stupid out there. You deserve what you get or DON'T get, meaning any assistance from your government. They take advantage of you because you're dumb desert morons without even HALF of a clue. Under ARS 12-991, the state criminal nuisance abatement law, an "affected resident" could have sued in Superior Court for an injunction against the CHOMO (cild molester.) They could also sue for money damages. Of course, the Phoenix City Attorney, the Maricopa County Attorney, and the AZ Attorney General all have standing to sue also. But they don't want to attack a property owner who pays big taxes, regardless of how much crime emanates from his property. As you know, there are also local nuisance, noise, and other laws/codes that could have been used much earlier if you had officials with IQs a bit higher than houseplants. Get a real job, Fenske, you little ASU punk. Gerri Cocozza

  • Josh Waterman 05/09/2009 5:38:00 AM

    Wow what a horrendously written piece. I don't understand this newspaper at all. Where is the flow to this writing? It seems that its author merely wanted to namedrop "The New Times" as many times as she could. A terrible read.

  • Mentally incompetent reporter 05/08/2009 6:25:00 PM

    Wow once again a reporter who doesn't know all the facts starts talking out of their ass. Well this is to be expected from a paper that doesn't get it's facts straight before running a story. I'm pretty sure you didn't find any 10 year olds there and what noise complaints? From the empty commercial buildings? Were the cops calling 911 as well to report these noise violations? Or was it Helen who owns the Icehouse and is upset that she isn't getting her usual 4-6k dollars from events being done there? Obviously the police would not see or hear a bar mitzvahs or quincea�s because usually those are held during daylight hours and don't go past 9pm. Then again obviously if this reporter did research the situation and by research I mean pull their head out of their ass and look around for a few minutes they would of seen the other events that go on at the 5th Ave Event Center. Then again we can't expect much from the Newtimes since they are Helens bitch and always use the Icehouse. This is the most bias and one sided article. Oh and I'm sure the bridge that was supposely shaking really wasn't considering with how the jail is built next door you can't hear shit inside it but the inmates screaming as they are nearly beaten to death by deputies.

  • Will Novak 05/08/2009 10:25:00 AM

    My god the New Times strikes again! Please just stick to making the events calendar and the "Best of," everything else you guys do is mind numbingly retarded. The guy was convicted and SERVED HIS TIME. Thats it. Its over. Its in the past. Its done. He doesn't have to have it held against him for his entire life. Thats not the way the justice system works, you do a crime, you do the time, then its over. If the justice system felt he was rehabilitated, then we have to accept their professional judgement (which may be slightly more informed and educated that yours) and move on. Also if this guy was diddling 7 year olds, why would he even be interested in the 17 year olds at his raves? But yah, we better shutter a downtown business! They haven't done anything wrong, but some creepy weird old guy is associated with them, and that ought to be a crime! The guy was let go anyway, and you still want the place shuttered? For what reason? Is his creepy spirit hovering over the building and looking up girls skirts?

 
Browse Voice Nation
  • Voice Places

    Voice Places

    Discover restaurants, nightlife, travel, shopping...

  • VOICE Daily Deals

    VOICE Daily Deals

    Get 50 to 90% off every day on restaurants, movies, massages...

  • Best Of

    Best Of...

    More than 10,000 of the BEST things to eat, drink, and experience

  • My Voice Nation

    My Voice Nation

    Join the Village Voice community and get exclusive deals and info

  • Happy Hour

    Happy Hour

    Your local Happy Hour guide at your fingertips

or

Log in or Sign up

Social Connect:

Use your favorite account to access My Voice Nation.


Use your My Voice Nation account to log in:





Forgot password?
or

Sign Up or Log in

Social Connect:

Sign up for My Voice Nation with your preferred network.


Sign up for a My Voice Nation account:



Privacy policy