Kendrick Wilson

A poll released last Thursday by KAET-TV in Phoenix and the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University showed a mere 28 percent approval rating for Gov. Jane Dee Hull. Fifty-eight percent disapproved of her job performance, while 14 percent had no opinion.

While I'm delighted to see the public come to realize the lack of leadership on the part of Gov. Hull, I wonder why it didn't come sooner. In July 2000, when voters were asked the same question, she held a 74 percent approval rating. Perhaps the alternative fuel fiasco influenced some voters' opinions. Perhaps her response to the current budget crisis has also made an impact. Nonetheless, the governor's performance has been unacceptable for several years.

Recently, her divisive tactics with the budget issue have been unbelievable. She has threatened to use the line-item veto to eliminate pay raises for state employees - pay raises that had been promised to them. She has considered any type of tax increase or new taxes to be out of the question. In the meantime, she has refused any compromise whatsoever with Democratic leadership in the state Senate. Why weren't the voters disapproving of the governor's leadership the first time the state was ranked lowest in the nation for education spending during her tenure? When she became governor, she promised to make education a top priority. It was not until 2000, nearly four years after she was first appointed governor, that Proposition 301, the education sales tax, was put before voters. Other than her boondoggle "Students First" program, she had done nothing to help K-12 education in Arizona until she hesitantly supported putting Proposition 301 on the ballot. She promised to be an advocate for teachers - and teachers are still waiting for their pay raises. Was her non-leadership with the education issue not reason enough for voters to be dissatisfied with her job performance?

When Gov. Hull first ran for governor in 1998, one of her TV commercials showed her saying, "Maricopa county will not receive the lion's share of the state budget." Now, four years later, Maricopa county still receives a disproportionately large allocation of the state's budget. Gov. Hull has done nothing to provide a fair share of state spending to Pima County, and under her leadership (if one can call it leadership), Maricopa County has actually received a larger share of the state budget.

She also proposed her "Growing Smarter" scheme while running for governor in 1998. While this would have provided some money for protecting open space, it would have made development easier in other areas. Just as Vice President Cheney's energy plan was developed mainly by Enron, Hull's "Growing Smarter" scheme was put together mostly by developers. Just look at the provisions in the "Growing Smarter" proposal. It calls for developers to pay their "fair share" of costs for new roads, schools, water lines and other infrastructure required by new development. It fails, however, to explain what the developers' "fair share" is, and provides no system for collecting that "fair share." Perhaps it was just wishful thinking.

The press, for the most part, ignored Gov. Hull's remarks in Sierra Vista about endangered species during the 1998 campaign. She called endangered species laws "too strict" and said she wanted them weakened. This comes as no surprise since the bulk of her campaign funds came from developers and mining companies (both of which could benefit from weakened endangered species laws). I suppose it should also have come as no surprise that she adamantly opposed the new Ironwoods National Monument northwest of Tucson. While the press must take some of the blame for glossing over these issues, the voters were foolish to approve.

It is clear to me that nothing good has come of Hull's governorship. It has been filled with empty promises, and political paybacks to her campaign contributors. I still can't help but wonder if the voters were asleep at the wheel before they came to realize the governor's faults.

Let's hope we can survive this next year with her lack of leadership and divisiveness.