Sen. Scott Bundgaard, Aubry Ballard issue joint statement*

February 27, 2011

“We want to jointly apologize for allowing a private matter to interrupt the public – and especially for taking up the valuable time of law enforcement. The police officers who responded deserve thanks for their sensitivity and compassion.

We have cared for each other in the past; we wish the best for each other in the future. Like most relationships, ours has had some ups and downs, but it has always been based on our Christian faith and our respect for one another. With that in mind, we intend to go our separate ways now and put what happened Friday night and Saturday in the past.

Obviously, we’re both tired and embarrassed. Each of us would like to reclaim some privacy. We hope the media and the public can respect that decision. Thank you for your understanding.”

 – Sen. Scott Bundgaard and Aubry Ballard

* Issued through Rose+Moser+Allyn Public & Online Relations for Sen. Bundgaard and David Leibowitz for Aubrey Ballard.


13 Responses to Sen. Scott Bundgaard, Aubry Ballard issue joint statement*

  1. Rambling Rose says:

    This matter should have remained between the two of them. Don’t you imagine you’d be embarrassed if your personal life was swaying in the breeze before those who are no party to your personal argument? Bundgaard and Ballard are not the first and won’t be the last to have a private matter explode into a messy public debate among those who have nothing to do with the issue other than gawk and dissect it. Give them a break. You’d want the same consideration. This is not a case of domestic violence.

    • Kent says:

      I agree Rose. What bothers me is the rush to hire PR firms to plead your case. Even Fulton Brock used the Rose et al firm to announce he was divorcing his wife after she was arrested for sex with a minor. He had my sympathy up until then. In that instance, (another personal matter) the need for a spokesman, in my estimation, was over the top.

  2. Justin says:

    I agree. Quite enough. Leave them alone.

  3. Craig says:

    RR – I’m one for not criticizing public officials for not having perfect personal lives – most of us aren’t perfect either.

    However, once it ends up in the police log, it’s fair game.

    And yes, it *is* a case of domestic violence. The people involved don’t have to be married for it to be so. In addition, it can be domestic violence when a woman attacks a man, or when both parties are inflicting it on each other.

    • MacBeth says:

      For a charge of domestic violence, the parties don’t have to be married, but they do have to reside together. Bundgaard and Ballard maintained separate residences.

      Just curious: What possesses you to use asterisks in place of quotation marks? The practice is disconcerting and removes credibility from the points you attempt to make.

      • Craig says:

        Residence is only one factor in determining if a relationship is a domestic one.

        From ARS 13-3601

        “A. “Domestic violence” means…if any of the following applies:
        6. The relationship between the victim and the defendant is currently or was previously a romantic or sexual relationship.

        I used the asterisks to indicate emphasis. Quotes would have indicated, well, a “quote.” :)

  4. MacBeth says:

    Wrong on both counts.

    1. The parties must reside together or have a child together, neither of which is the case.

    At best, this is an assault. The charging officer determined the relationship when issuing the complaint. A ‘romantic’ relationship is not necessarily a sexual one. Since when are police officers in the business of determining degrees of romance?
    2. Italics are for emphasis. Asterisks are properly used to reference a source or citation. You are making an asterisk of yourself with your usage, Craig.

    • Craig says:

      If you don’t believe me about the section of the law that I quoted, here is the link to the section of the Arizona Revised Statutes that I quoted –

      As for the use of asterisks vs. italics, asterisks are easier that to stop writing a comment, and to find the proper HTML tags. If you want to look down on me (or someone else) for not using HTML, so be it.

      • MacBeth says:

        I am quite familiar with the Arizona Revised Statutes, thank you very much. I stand by my previous comment.

        Topic Number Two: My 15-year-old niece used astericks instead of quotation marks and found her grade lowered for incorrect grammar. Her English teacher was correct, she was not.

  5. Claire Voyant says:

    Seeing Red AZ:
    Heads up. Craig has an agenda. He has his own very left-wing website which he runs in tandem with another of the same ilk. He has been relentlessly bashing Sen. Bundgaard. Why provide him a forum here?

  6. Steve Calabrese says:

    My gut reaction – and I could be wrong – is that there is a concern that Ballard could be charged with attempted car theft if she decided to not play ball.

    It would be interesting to see the off-duty officers’ report. How did she wind up in the driver’s seat? If it’s true that she threatened to take his car and drive off, Bundgard was totally within his rights to use force to stop what would be a felony.

  7. AZ Conservative Guy says:

    Steve: For once I agree with you! Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

  8. GOPJet says:


    That may have been a factor but there is much more to the story. She WAS intoxicated and there are many, many people at that event that saw her drinking. She had threatened to jump from the car…if he would’ve allowed her to drive off, things could’ve ended up much worse. Not only for her but anyone driving on the highway that night.

    Although it looks like she couldn’t resist her 15 minutes of fame, broke her word and hit the media circuit today. I’m out of town and a bit behind on the media buzz. I suspect when the police report comes out there will be some surprising details that haven’t been made public yet.

    I have known Scott for years. He is a friend of our family and has our full support.