Talk:Jan Brewer/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Abortion

I removed the comment about Brewers abortion ruling being unconstitutional. There's been no ruling on this, and until there is that kind of statement is just an opinion. Lawnboy1977 (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Redacted Gay Rights Legislation?

The article says she redacted gay rights legislation put in place by the former Secretary of State. Brewer is the former Secretary of State, so are we saying she redacted her own legislation? Also, what does "redacting" legislation mean? Generally speaking, only the Legislature can "redact" (repeal) legislation. The accuracy of this section of the article is in doubt.John Paul Parks (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

ahh, you're right. I meant to say former governor. Sorry about that. fixed 14:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.156.229 (talk)

I corrected the statement that the governor "put forward" any legislation for LGBT citizens and clarified her current position on the domestic partner benefits. Please do not remove the LGBT section as it delineates a topic of interest to some.68.109.156.229 (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Healthcare Section

Thank you to whoever cleaned up the healthcare section; it reads more neutral and fact-driven now. Thx ZP 68.109.156.229 (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Brewer Picture

The picture that was uploaded on the page was really low quality so I removed it for the time being. Any alternatives that are clearer and don't have copyright issues? Boromir123 (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

A low quality image is better than none at all. Please do not remove photos unless you have a better one yourself to upload. 68.2.137.33 (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there an un-airbrushed photo that can be used? She does not look remotely like that.

Attention: DO NOT delete or paste over photos that have been uploaded by others. My photo is completely copyright free and has been pasted over numerous times. Novice wikipedians stop messing with the image!24.251.210.22 (talk)

Copyright claims on the new image are unfounded; I took the image with my cell phone camera and am uploading it for free license.68.2.137.33 (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

"Dr." John Brewer - truth about career in Arizona

unsubstantiated claims. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For many years, "Dr." John Brewer, husband of the new Republican governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, practiced general medicine in Arizona as a naturopathic physician. In addition to his medical practice, in which he prescribed medications, he also served as the Executive Director of the Arizona Naturopathic Board for which he received $50,000 annually.

In June of 2000 the Arizona Attorney General's Office audited the Arizona naturopathic board and found numerous irregularities, and illegalities including the illegal prescription of drugs. See: http://www.azauditor.gov/Reports/State_Agencies/Agencies/Naturopathic

> Physicians, Board of Medical

> Examiners/Performance/00-9/00-9.pdf

In 2001 it was determined that "Dr." Brewer and a number of other chiropractors in Arizona had forged their naturopathic diplomas. (See Fehr-Snyder K. Naturopathic board director on leave. Arizona Republic, May 11, 2001. Naturopathic Board votes to vote to fire chief: Allegations tied to credentials, paper shredding. Arizona Republic, May 12, 2001.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RealNaturopath (talk • contribs) 22:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

What exactly are you linking to? ("Page does not exist") Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Conveniently, the link to the Arizona Auditor does not go anywhere. Could be because Jan Brewer is the Governor and the Auditor works for her. Also, conveniently, the archives for Az Rep only go back to Dec 31, 2001 and this happened May 11 and 12, 2001. I have a fax copy of the articles someone sent back when it happened. Guess I'll write the naturopathic board for the info because she can't believe that she can become a national figure and the truth about her husband's fraudulent practice of naturopathic medicine not come out on a national basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RealNaturopath (talk • contribs) 22:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Azcentral.com (have to pay to get articles but the truth is out there!) 1. NATUROPATHIC BOARD DIRECTOR ON LEAVE Kerry Fehr-Snyder; Arizona Republic; May 11, 2001; pg. B.6;

2. NATUROPATHIC BOARD VOTES TO FIRE CHIEF ALLEGATIONS TIED TO CREDENTIALS, PAPER SHREDDING Kerry Fehr-Snyder; Arizona Republic; May 12, 2001; pg. B.5; —Preceding unsigned comment added by RealNaturopath (talk • contribs) 22:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Good. so come back when you have it sorted out. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Link to Az Auditor General Report

This is the link to the AZ Auditor General Report regarding John L. Brewer, husband of Jan Brewer, and his failure to perform his duties as Executive Director of the Naturopathic Medical Board:

http://www.auditorgen.state.az.us/Reports/State_Agencies/Agencies/Naturopathic%20Physicians,%20Board%20of%20Medical%20Examiners/Performance/00-9/pa00-9.htm

If link doesn't work, enter "Arizona Auditor Naturopathic" into Google and follow the links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RealNaturopath (talk • contribs) 20:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for a working URL. A quick scan of the material at the link finds audit report regarding the effects of a 1999 change to Arizona state law. I am confused as to how this audit report supports that claims you made about illegal behavior on Brewer's part. A search of the summary, audit report, and 24-month followup report finds Brewer's name is only listed once. This is in the audit report's cover letter where he he listed as one of the report recipients. Where is the information supporting any of the claims you made in the above section? --Allen3 ^talk 20:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Arizona Republic May 12, 2001

NATUROPATHIC BOARD VOTES TO FIRE CHIEF ALLEGATIONS TIED TO CREDENTIALS, PAPER SHREDDING
Arizona Republic - Phoenix, Ariz.
Author: Kerry Fehr-Snyder
Date: May 12, 2001
Start Page: B.5
Section: Valley & State
Text Word Count: 258

Document Text The state board responsible for licensing naturopathic doctors fired its
executive director Friday, with one member arguing that the "appearance and
climate" of wrongdoing and ill will were enough to justify his removal.
John L. Brewer, a retired chiropractor who had spent more than 10 years
working for the board, was fired on a 4-1 vote after a second day of
contentious meetings. Both meetings were opened to the public at Brewer's
request. Brewer is married to Maricopa County Supervisor Jan Brewer.
The only member who voted against Brewer's dismissal was Frank Sweet, a
naturopathic doctor based in Lake Havasu.
Earlier this week, allegations that Brewer had shredded public documents
and fudged his credentials surfaced. He was escorted from his office and
placed on administrative leave.
Although the board never proved Brewer was guilty of the charges, board
member Konrad Kail maintained, "The thing that concerns me is the appearance
... and the climate between the executive director and the board."
Brewer's attorneys emphasized that he received a glowing job appraisal and
was recommended for a raise just three months ago.
The sudden change in opinion seemed to come from two newcomers: Kip Micuda,
who was appointed to the board a month ago, and Melissa Cornelius, who was
named to the board two months ago.
"This smacks of what can only be deemed as a public assassination of my
client," attorney Darrow Soll said.
John Brewer said he was insulted and embarrassed by the proceedings. His
attorneys said they were weighing their options regarding an appeal or
lawsuit.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by RealNaturopath (talk • contribs) 21:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Brewer did not receive a naturopathic degree from a college in LA which has not bestowed such a degree since 1948

NATUROPATHIC BOARD DIRECTOR ON LEAVE
Arizona Republic - Phoenix, Ariz.
Author: Kerry Fehr-Snyder
Date: May 11, 2001
Start Page: B.6
Section: Valley & State
Text Word Count: 389

Document Text
The executive director of the state board that oversees naturopathic
doctors was placed on administrative leave Thursday amid allegations that he
shredded documents, copied exams and fudged his credentials.
John L. Brewer, husband of Maricopa County Supervisor Jan Brewer, denied
the allegations, saying he is the target of a "disgruntled employee."
The action against Brewer came after a contentious public meeting with the
Naturopathic Physicians Board of Medical Examiners. Naturopaths include
chiropractors and those who generally use massage, herbal remedies and other
"alternative medicines."
Leading the charge was board member Kip Micuda, a relative newcomer whose
suggestion to fire Brewer was not backed by the other three members in
attendance.
"If Dr. Brewer was doing a bang-up job and this agency were doing great,
this wouldn't be an issue," Micuda said.
The board is scheduled to meet again today to determine Brewer's fate.
On Tuesday, Micuda and the Capitol police escorted Brewer out of his office
and told him to work from home while the board discussed the allegations.
"Dr. Brewer was destroying documents, which was a great concern to me,"
Micuda said, adding that he had received complaints from staffers.
Brewer, who makes $52,000 a year in the job, denied that he shredded
anything.
Even if he had, board member Frank Sweet questioned whether Brewer did
anything wrong.
"I shred documents in my office at 7 a.m. all the time, trashy stuff,"
Sweet said.
But Melissa Cornelius, an assistant attorney general, said the allegation
was enough to warrant barring Brewer from his office.
"You have an obligation to the public" record, she said.
The other accusations -- that Brewer photocopied exams and faked his
credentials -- were less clear.
Brewer has worked for the board for about 10 years in various capacities,
including as a board member. Micuda said the credentials came into play after
he discovered Brewer did not receive a naturopathic degree from a college in
Los Angeles as he had claimed. The college has not bestowed such a degree
since 1948.
An independent check with the college, now known as Southern California
University of Health Sciences, showed Thursday that Brewer earned a
chiropractic degree in 1970.
Brewer said after the meeting that he didn't recall what he had listed on
his license application, saying that he only remembers being asked what
college he had attended.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by RealNaturopath (talk • contribs) 21:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Birth Certificate

Is there a released online copy of her BC/immigration papers to prove she's a legal citizen? --208.38.59.163 (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

good luck I been looking it for two weeks now. I guess we can forget about getting a long copy, we might have to settle for an announcement in a local newspaper. 67.246.175.103 (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from AZterritory, 27 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} You have shown her as "a native of Glendale, AZ". She is NOT a native Arizonan! Below you show her born in Hollywood, Ca. Might want to clear this up, unless there is some question as to birth? Should be replaced with "a native of California".

AZterritory (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I made that "born in California". Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Protected Statues

I vote it be removed from this article. It has done nothing to improve the article's quality in any way, and its only presence was to end debate. Travis in travisland (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I am glad it was finally removed. As can be seen by the history of the page, no good came from it. Travis in travisland (talk) 09:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

controversial quantifier

I have added it to this article. I see no logical reason it shouldn't be included. If you doubt it is controversial I have serious doubts about how informed you might be. Travis in travisland (talk) 02:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The addition has been reverted as per WP:LABEL. The problem with qualifiers of this type is that they imply the presence of an issue while providing no explanation of the nature of the issue or evidence the condition actually exists. There as also WP:NPOV issues with this addition as the negative label is being applied only to Brewer's participation (why are her actions considered "controversial" while the actions of those opposed to her position are not considered "controversial"). --Allen3 ^talk 02:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The bill is controversial. It is very hard to deny this. Spend a few minutes on the talk page if you dont believe me. If you want to mention that the opposition to the bill is controversial as well, be my guest. To remove it is too imply universal consent to the bill. Travis in travisland (talk) 09:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Singing Sock Puppet

The article states, "Recently in defense of her bill her office produced a commercial featuring a singing frog sock puppet. [25]" This statement should either be dropped or it should be extended to say, "Recently in defense of her bill her office produced a commercial featuring a singing frog sock puppet which made fun of several prominent politicians who had not read SB 1070 before criticizing it. [25]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.199.32.202 (talk) 03:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems to wordy for me, I like the current wording. Travis in travisland (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll grant that the current wording is certainly biased, but I don't see that as a virtue.-69.199.32.202 (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No bias in the current wording. She felt the a singing sock puppet would be an appropriate way to get her viewpoint across. Its a fact. Look on youtube and you can see the singing sock puppet for yourself.Travis in travisland (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC).

disproven claim

Being in which no law enforcement agency made this claim and several have made counter-claims this has been disproven. Travis in travisland (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree here. Coroners, police officers, border patrol, and everyone else involved says they've never heard of anything like that, and I doubt she's ever personally marched through the desert herself. The same would apply if you asked someone to give more "proof" that there isn't a single green strawberry on the moon after you just said there was. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

LGBT Issues

According to the Arizona Republic and the Arizona Daily Star, it costs the state $3 million to cover domestic partners and $625 million for other employees and their dependents.[14]

This seems like a justification for stripping away rights from people. It doesn't belong in the article. It should at least be re-worded. 75.221.198.163 (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The cost is relevant, whether that cost is worth taking away rights is up to the reader.

Also note it's my opinion that gay marriage is a right, it's not everyones opinion and it doesn't have to be a universal truth, one could say reproduction capable marriage has more worth as it furthers the species and thus could deserves more validation without being undeniably wrong and evil and thus worthy of censorship, which Wikipedia does not do by the way. 72.208.6.122 (talk) 02:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know any info about her education? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.49.4 (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

What is the deal with the new wording? You cant even tell that it is referring to LGBT issues. I see a definite political bias here. i would correct it, but an admin decided to end all debate on this page. Travis in travisland (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

So this one note you wrote qualifies as "was determined"? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

dude, come on. Its clearly a Gay issue. I'm sorry but lets not tip-toe around this. Yes, you are right that technically it would in theory apply to all domestic partners. Just like a ban on circumcision could be argued to not be an anti-Muslim or anti-Jewish act because it could effect other groups, but clearly the intent of the law was to deny homosexuals government paid healthcare. The judge ruled it that way, LGBT groups are fighting for it, and it is crystal clear that a hard-right family values conservative was thinking and planning this when she planned this law. I am sorry she has a personal problem with homosexuality but that isnt my problem, and I wont help her hide her hatred under a whisy-whoshy term "domestic partners" Sorry if I sound mad it isnt my intention. I wont change it again for a while until this is settled. Travis in travisland (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright. I think we are on the same "side" w/ regards to homophobes. I simply know of a few heterosexual domestic partnerships that are affected as well; lumping them with "gays" won't really do it any service (Jon Doe: "it's only a gay issue, why should I care?") Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Jane Marble - why?

The beginning of the article mentions Sarah Jane Marble as an ancestor of Jan Brewer. Why is this important? Marble does not appear to have any claim to fame of her own, so why is she being listed as an ancestor? Most Americans have immigrant ancestors dating to the 19th century or earlier. Zilmaro (talk) 09:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Its fairly common to list information like this. From the Barack Obama page

Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961[4] at Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii, United States,[5] to Stanley Ann Dunham,[6] an American of mostly English, but also German,[7] descent from Wichita, Kansas,[8] and Barack Obama, Sr., a Luo from Nyang’oma Kogelo, Nyanza Province, Kenya Colony. Obama is the first President to have been born in Hawaii.[9][10] Obama's parents met in 1960 in a Russian language class at the University of Hawaii at Mānoa, where his father was a foreign student on scholarship.[11][12] The couple married on February 2, 1961,[13] but separated when Barack Sr. went to Harvard University on scholarship, and divorced in 1964.[12] Obama Sr. remarried and returned to Kenya, visiting Barack in Hawaii only once, in 1971. He died in an automobile accident in 1982.[14]

from Ronald Reagon's wikipedia page

Ronald Reagan was born in an apartment on the second floor of a commercial building in Tampico, Illinois, on February 6, 1911, to John Edward "Jack" Reagan and Nelle Wilson Reagan.[2] Reagan's father was of Irish Catholic ancestry,[3] while his mother had Scots-English ancestors.[4

So the data should be re-included. 67.246.175.103 (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

No. Gage (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No. One thing that immediately jumps out with regards to the two examples is that all the family members listed had a direct effect on the life of the subject of the associated biography. The proposal here is to add an ancestor that, based upon average 19th century life spans, may not have even been alive at the time of Brewer's birth (the cited source gives no details on Marble's life beyond her arrival to New York City in 1886). Without evidence that the great-grandmother was either notable enough for a Wikipedia article or had a direct and significant effect on Brewer's life there is no reason for inclusion of this factoid. --Allen3 ^talk 14:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

What jumps out most in the examples is that these are the parents of the subjects -- immediate family. Bustter (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. As I said previously data like this is often included. Here is a quote from the Ambrose Bierce article

Bierce was born in Meigs County, Ohio to Marcus Aurelius Bierce (1799–1876) and Laura Sherwood Bierce.[2] His mother was a descendant of William Bradford.

William Bradford died on May 9, 1657 Ambrose Bierce was born on June 24, 1842. Based on the lifespans in that era I doubt he was still alive at the time of Ambrose's birth. 67.246.175.103 (talk) 00:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

We realize that Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Just because no one is willing to support your position does not mean it is alright to restate your position and pretend that multiple postings by a single person represents a meaningful consensus. --Allen3 ^talk 01:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

More to the point, Bradford, as Governor of Plymouth, was a notable figure in his own right. No such claim can be made for Sarah Jane Marble. All Marble accomplished was emigration to the US, and that's no accomplishment, according to Brewer. Bustter (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed the website you placed and find it irrelevant to the discussion. I restated what I wrote because it was obvious that it hadnt been read. At no point did I pretend there was a consensus, please do not put words in my mouth. Her immigration family history is relevant to this article. 98.118.188.7 (talk) 01:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is not a website, it's a "guidance essay" that exists because the more experienced hands at Wikipedia believe some might learn from it. Your behavior (pointing to the Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama articles as justification for Ms Marble's inclusion) is 'exactly' what this article describes. Perhaps you could read it more carefully. Anyway, the immediate families of Reagan and Obama are NOT the equivalent of the long-dead Ms Marble, nor is the well-known historical figure, William Bradford (Plymouth governor). Bustter (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from {{subst:CURRENTUSER}}, 10 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Under "Controversies" it should read the following: Brewer cut Department of Corrections spending by $67 million. In August 2010, three inmates (one convicted of murder) escaped from a private, medium-security prison. KTAR Several of Brewer's closest aids have ties to Arizona's private prison system. CBS 5 The inmates are suspected of murdering an Oklahoma couple in New Mexico.

68.3.24.113 (talk) 00:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

hm... WP:SYNTH... or what are you trying to imply? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: I think it is rather fallacious to imply (as the OP is doing) that Brewer's spending cuts directly or indirectly allowed the escapes to happen. The relevant logical fallacy would be post hoc ergo propter hoc—simply because the cuts occurred before the escape does not mean they caused it. Please provide a reliable source supporting your assertion. Intelligentsium 02:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, it should just read "Democrats and some Republicans have placed blame on Brewer for the escapes of three convicted criminals from a private prison in Arizona that led to a shootout and two deahts" AZCentral —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.195.246.171 (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

After some cursory research, the controversy s somewhat more complex, and the criticism of Brewer a bit more pointed. Part of the cost-cutting involves the privatizing of prisons -- putting responsibility in the hands of private enterprise who pay devoted attention to the bottom line, not so much to public's safety and well-being. I've only found the criticism among some non-notable blogs, but if there's a notable source it may be worth inclusion. Bustter (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here's a notable source, article from an Arizona daily, documenting criticism that Brewer's administration bears responsibility for the escapees:

http://azdailysun.com/news/state-and-regional/article_526ad303-1689-5afe-961d-7e2aa070da8e.html Bustter (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Need to expand info that her husband is also a public figure who practiced as a naturopathic physician for 30 years with a fake degree...

To leave the mention of her husband, John L Brewer, the way it is is misleading and pandering to a politician. He was a VERY powerful public figure in the naturopathic community and much of his untouchability came from his wife's political power. If he decided a naturopath did not pay proper homage, he blocked their ability to get licensed in the state. This man hurt lots of people and performed invasive physical exams on males and females and wrote prescriptions for drugs that he was not trained or licensed to do as a chiropractor. If you remove these articles every 30 days because they offend your political sensibilities, I'll just repost them.

Arizona Republic May 12, 2001 NATUROPATHIC BOARD VOTES TO FIRE CHIEF ALLEGATIONS TIED TO CREDENTIALS, PAPER SHREDDING Arizona Republic - Phoenix, Ariz. Author: Kerry Fehr-Snyder Date: May 12, 2001 Start Page: B.5 Section: Valley & State Text Word Count: 258

Document Text The state board responsible for licensing naturopathic doctors fired its executive director Friday, with one member arguing that the "appearance and climate" of wrongdoing and ill will were enough to justify his removal. John L. Brewer, a retired chiropractor who had spent more than 10 years working for the board, was fired on a 4-1 vote after a second day of contentious meetings. Both meetings were opened to the public at Brewer's request. Brewer is married to Maricopa County Supervisor Jan Brewer. The only member who voted against Brewer's dismissal was Frank Sweet, a naturopathic doctor based in Lake Havasu. Earlier this week, allegations that Brewer had shredded public documents and fudged his credentials surfaced. He was escorted from his office and placed on administrative leave. Although the board never proved Brewer was guilty of the charges, board member Konrad Kail maintained, "The thing that concerns me is the appearance ... and the climate between the executive director and the board." Brewer's attorneys emphasized that he received a glowing job appraisal and was recommended for a raise just three months ago. The sudden change in opinion seemed to come from two newcomers: Kip Micuda, who was appointed to the board a month ago, and Melissa Cornelius, who was named to the board two months ago. "This smacks of what can only be deemed as a public assassination of my client," attorney Darrow Soll said. John Brewer said he was insulted and embarrassed by the proceedings. His attorneys said they were weighing their options regarding an appeal or lawsuit.

NATUROPATHIC BOARD DIRECTOR ON LEAVE Arizona Republic - Phoenix, Ariz. Author: Kerry Fehr-Snyder Date: May 11, 2001 Start Page: B.6 Section: Valley & State Text Word Count: 389

Document Text The executive director of the state board that oversees naturopathic doctors was placed on administrative leave Thursday amid allegations that he shredded documents, copied exams and fudged his credentials. John L. Brewer, husband of Maricopa County Supervisor Jan Brewer, denied the allegations, saying he is the target of a "disgruntled employee." The action against Brewer came after a contentious public meeting with the Naturopathic Physicians Board of Medical Examiners. Naturopaths include chiropractors and those who generally use massage, herbal remedies and other "alternative medicines." Leading the charge was board member Kip Micuda, a relative newcomer whose suggestion to fire Brewer was not backed by the other three members in attendance. "If Dr. Brewer was doing a bang-up job and this agency were doing great, this wouldn't be an issue," Micuda said. The board is scheduled to meet again today to determine Brewer's fate. On Tuesday, Micuda and the Capitol police escorted Brewer out of his office and told him to work from home while the board discussed the allegations. "Dr. Brewer was destroying documents, which was a great concern to me," Micuda said, adding that he had received complaints from staffers. Brewer, who makes $52,000 a year in the job, denied that he shredded anything. Even if he had, board member Frank Sweet questioned whether Brewer did anything wrong. "I shred documents in my office at 7 a.m. all the time, trashy stuff," Sweet said. But Melissa Cornelius, an assistant attorney general, said the allegation was enough to warrant barring Brewer from his office. "You have an obligation to the public" record, she said. The other accusations -- that Brewer photocopied exams and faked his credentials -- were less clear. Brewer has worked for the board for about 10 years in various capacities, including as a board member. Micuda said the credentials came into play after he discovered Brewer did not receive a naturopathic degree from a college in Los Angeles as he had claimed. The college has not bestowed such a degree since 1948. An independent check with the college, now known as Southern California University of Health Sciences, showed Thursday that Brewer earned a chiropractic degree in 1970. Brewer said after the meeting that he didn't recall what he had listed on his license application, saying that he only remembers being asked what college he had attended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RealNaturopath (talk • contribs) 18:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Link to AZ State Auditors Report Naturopathic Licensing

http://www.azauditor.gov/Reports/State_Agencies/Agencies/Naturopathic%20Physicians,%20Board%20of%20Medical%20Examiners/Performance/00-9/00-9.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by RealNaturopath (talk • contribs) 18:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Father's death

Shouldn't we address Brewer's false claim that her father died in Germany fighting the Nazis, rather than 10 years later due to fumes he inhaled in a munitions factory?[1]? 75.76.213.106 (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It was there until the article got protected status. See, Admins dont have to explain there actions. When they see people disagree with them they just freeze the page to end all debate. Welcome to wikipedia. Travis in travisland (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Not trying to "add" anything to the actual debate here, but this lie must be one of the ugliest and most despicable i've come across in public service. She deserves to rot in hell for coming up with such an unbelievable PR stunt. And people wonder why citizens have lost all faith in politicians... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.39.17.86 (talk) 07:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Correcting Early Life

She married John Leon Brewer in Nevada, and worked briefly in Glendale, California before moving to her husband's hometown of Phoenix, Arizona in 1970. The couple later relocated to Glendale, Arizona, where John became a successful chiropractor, in addition to finding some real estate success.

I suggest the following correction to this section:

"The couple later relocated to Glendale, Arizona, where John became a successful chiropractor and naturopathic physician and served as Executive Director of the Naturopathic Board of Medical Examiners for many years until he was fired in May 2001 for shredding documents and was under suspicion of having used a fake diploma to get his original naturopathic license among other charges. John allowed his yearly license to expire so to save face the Naturopathic Board of Medical Examiners (NPBOMEX) places a note in his file that they would further investigate and prosecute him only if he tried to renew his naturopathic license. He also found some success in real estate."

Leaving out this information about her husband is misleading and amounts to a lie. Leaving it out of the bio of a woman some people are calling for President in 2012 puts Wiki in a questionable position. Todd Palin's involvement in unscrupulous activities is in Sarah Palin's wiki so why is Jan Brewer being protected? Put John L Brewer NMD into a search engine and you find his name associated with NPBOMEX and his clinic and on doctor rating sites. He never used the name John Brewer DC, NMD because he used his fake license and his wife's power to make Arizona the only state in the country to make NDs NMDs hinting that they are some tyoe of MD which they are not. She was part of this whole thing because she attended his graduation from CHIROPRACTIC school in LA in 1970 and knew good and well he did not go to or receive a diploma as a naturopath. He was able to expand the scope of practice for NDs in Arizona to include DEA numbers and practiced as a general family physician sticking his fingers in people's private parts which he was never trained to do. He always people saw him as an NMD first and foremost and kept the DC in the shadows, NONE od his activities would have been possible without the help and power of his wife. He has a weak handshake and a very effiminate nature and he never would have been able to assault patients the way he did or ban naturopathic physicians from HIS STATE which he did without the power and cooperation of his wife. Sorry to upset any one but I provided the Arizona Republic articles and the link to the Auditors Report which basically said the Exec Dir John Brewer was out of control and granting licenses to people after they completely failed the Arizona state exams (he got the National Naturopathic Exams thrown out because he had no control over the scores). Thanks. Sorry if anyone is annoyed with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RealNaturopath (talk • contribs) 18:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

How many more times do you want to post this stuff here? you've been at it sinec, oh, maybe, May? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Failure to Ensure that her Health Department Responds to Complaints

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the following to section "Governor of Arizona" (if this addition is objectionable, please explain why?) (Support for the statement about Brewer is here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1adWP5JCT-gqYoAXy8_EIVJwfwqp0nMkRMoqyr8rgdqc/edit):

Brewer is failing to ensure that the Arizona Department of Health Services responds to complaints.^[1]

Not done: Why? Because it appears to be an unverifiable generalization based on a letter of complaint written by a citizen. Please review the verifiability policy and the accompanying reliable sources guideline. Rivertorch (talk) 19:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Scientologist?

Is she scientologist? Why it is not metioned in the article? 71.99.92.124 (talk) 05:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there any verification in a reliable source? The source in the article indicates she's Lutheran. --TeaDrinker (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Links to Az Rep archives free summary re: John L Brewer: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/azcentral/access/1841823611.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=May+12%2C+2001&author=Kerry+Fehr-Snyder&pub=Arizona+Republic&edition=&startpage=B.5&desc=NATUROPATHIC+BOARD+VOTES+TO+FIRE+CHIEF+ALLEGATIONS+TIED+TO+CREDENTIALS%2C+PAPER+SHREDDING

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/azcentral/access/1841822381.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=May+11%2C+2001&author=Kerry+Fehr-Snyder&pub=Arizona+Republic&edition=&startpage=B.6&desc=NATUROPATHIC+BOARD+DIRECTOR+ON+LEAVE —Preceding unsigned comment added by RealNaturopath (talk • contribs) 16:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You'll need to show some coverage of this issue as it relates to Jan Brewer. It is not the job of Wikipedia to publish new or original research or criticism. Look for reliable sources which note this as a criticism of Jan Brewer, rather than evidence of the veracity of the problems of John Brewer. Hope this helps, --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Election in November

Someone recently changed the wording from "she was reelected" to "she was elected" because, in fact, this was the first time she was elected. However, I don't think the latter sense properly conveys that she'd already served most of a term. Some sources define "reelection" as "elected for a second or subsequent time", but Merriam Webster calls it "to elect for another term in office" [2]. The word fits the second definition, but not the first. What do you all think of the wording, and how it should sit? Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest "elected to a full term" or some close variant as the common terminology used for this type of a situation. --Allen3 ^talk 21:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Veto of Amendment on Running for US President

Why is this sentence in the Gun Rights section? Should it be given it's own section? "On April 18, 2011 Governor Jan Brewer vetoed two bills one which set a mandate that anyone running for President must have proof of U.S. citizenship" Durron597 (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Large addition of material, NPOV

There was a recent addition of a large amount of material on the subject's positions. Nearly all of it sounds like promotional material from a campaign flyer. I will start editing it down, but it is a proper mess. Lots of the positions are good to include discussion of, so I won't revert, but they can't be written as a puff piece. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Jan Brewer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

^ MacGuineas, Donald. "Agreement Among Arizona Officials to Illegally Censor". Retrieved 25 August 2012.

[1] MacGuineas, Donald. "Agreement Among Arizona Officials to Illegally Censor". Retrieved 25 August 2012.

[1]