by David Safier
Today's Daily Fitz in the Star.
(Noteworthy: Great party/event last night, linking Drinking Liberally and Smoking Conservatively. About 70 people there (a "conservative estimate," in honor of the right wing attendees), a mixture of Ds, Rs, Is (Independents) and Ls (Libertarians). Lots of candidates of various stripes as well. A love fest, generally, mixed in with spirited, disputatious discussion. The first, I hope, of many.)
by David Safier
(Here are parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.)
After reading over Lujan's explanation of HB2816 in last night's post a few times, I was ready to blast him for dancing around the issue I raised. But this morning I read it a few more times and went back to the actual bill, and I realized that I had made an incorrect assumption. (Remember in an earlier post, I gave myself the blogger's right to jump to conclusions? Remember I said I would correct any errors?) The bill does not give any extra funding to Cyber Schools as I thought it did. The inclusion of a possible 125% funding per student refers only to students who also attend a Joint Technical Education District program, which offers vocationally based education. (Thanks to HikerDave for pointing that out to me.) That's a perfectly legitimate exception in my book. Students who attend both a Cyber School and a traditional bricks-and-mortar school still only have a 100% allotment, to be split between the two. Fair enough.
Lujan was also right to say, "HB2816 also addresses concerns raised in the Auditor General's Report about academic accountability by making TAPBI programs more accountable to state standards." The new bill insists on proctored exams for students. Some Cyber Schools have allowed students to take their exams without supervision. The bill is unclear about how many and what kinds of exams are proctored, but it's a step toward greater accountability.
So, Rep. Lujan, thanks for clearing up my confusions about the nature of the bill. But I can't let you off the hook completely. You say the bill clarifies that the Cyber Schools can't get more than their rightful share of state funding, implying the earlier version was unclear. Uh uh. The original bill was perfectly clear on that score. All this bill does in that area is add the possibility of 125% funding when a JTED is involved.
If the original bill was perfectly clear, then where did the $6.4 million mistake originate? Why were Cyber Schools given more money than the law allowed when their students also attended bricks-and-mortar schools? The answer, according to the October, 2007 Performance Audit, is, the Arizona Department of Education screwed up. "The Student Accountability Information System (SAIS), ADE’s computer-based program that calculates ADM, currently does not have the capability to adjust for concurrent TAPBI enrollment." So the ADE created a really spreadsheet to deal with TAPBI, but it was a really crummy spreadsheet that didn't catch the dual enrollment problem.
So there was nothing wrong with the original law when it comes to the proper, proportional distribution of the funds. The problem was with the well trained, highly skilled folks working under Tom Horne's watchful eye. Well, maybe not so highly skilled. And maybe not so watchful eye.
I found more of interest in the audit that I want to write about in future posts, especially the question of whether Cyber Schools are being funded at a higher level than they need, but I'll end this post with a question I don't know the answer to:
Were the Cyber Schools that were the beneficiaries of the $6.4 million dollar overfunding from the less-than-diligent ADE required to return the extra funding? If so, no harm, no foul. But if they were allowed to keep the money, I have a problem with that.
by David Safier
(Here are parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.)
I emailed State Representative David Lujan (D-Phoenix) about HB2816, since he is the only Democratic sponsor of the bill, and said I would give him a chance to respond to my concerns. He wrote back within a few hours (I love my Democratic Reps when they care enough to respond so thoroughly and so quickly). So tonight, Lujan gets the last word. I'll chew over what he said and write about it tomorrow.
Hi David,HB2816 makes changes to the TAPBI (technology assisted project based instruction) program. The TAPBI program was created by the legislature in 1998 to extend academic options beyond the traditional classroom. Of the 14 schools/school districts that are offering TAPBI programs, 7 are charter schools and 7 are traditional public school districts, including Tucson Unified, Mesa Unified, Tempe Union, Deer Valley Unified and Peoria Unified school districts. So HB2816 does not just apply to charter schools.
HB2816 does not provide any additional funding for TAPBI programs. The purpose of the bill is to address and fix issues that were raised in an Auditor General's Report that was conducted last year on the effectiveness of the TAPBI programs. For example, the Auditor General's report found that some of the TAPBI programs that had students who were enrolled in both traditional "brick-n-mortar" schools and a TAPBI program were receiving more funding than they were supposed to from the State. These were both traditional public schools and charter schools that were receiving too much money from the State. So one of the main provisions in HB2816 is to clarify that the ADM for students in TAPBI programs cannot exceed 1.0 students or 1.25 if they are enrolled in a JTED program. HB2816 also addresses concerns raised in the Auditor General's Report about academic accountability by making TAPBI programs more accountable to state standards.
HB2816 has not been a partisan bill. It passed 54-2 in the House and passed unanimously in the Senate Education Committee. I think it is a good bill to ensure that the TAPBI programs are held more accountable as was recommended by the Auditor General. I agree with you that we should be focusing on provided better funding to traditional public schools and I would not support this bill, nor likely would many of my Democratic colleagues, if this bill was going to take away scarce educational dollars.
If you have additional questions, please let me know and I will do my best to get answers. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond.
David Lujan
State Representative - District 15
by David Safier
(Here are parts 1, 2, 3 and 4.)
"Six-point-four million? Safier is making this big deal about six-point-four million? I know that sounds like a lot, but as a percent of the state budget . . ."
The Tucson School District just put its reputation and its standing with the citizenry on the line by suggesting four schools had to be closed to make up some of the district's deficit. The process cost the School Board a huge hunk of credibility it couldn't afford to lose.
Anyone remember the savings projected for TUSD if all four schools were closed?
$1.8 million. One-point-eight million.
Six-point-four million is about three-and-a-third times more than one-point-eight million. Someone else had better tell TUSD, "Don't sweat six-point-four million extra given to Cyber Charter Schools. It's just a drop in the State's budget bucket." I, uh, I'm scared somebody at TUSD might hit me if I told 'em that.
by David Safier
(Note: I plan to use a blogger's prerogative in my posts on Cyber Schools to jump to conclusions before I know the whole story. As I continue blogging on the topic, I'll get more information and correct any errors I've made. I'm an honorable man with a somewhat overactive superego, so it's difficult for me to lie, or even stretch the truth. If I am corrected, or I find something I wrote is incorrect myself, I'll make sure to let you readers know. Meanwhile, if you know something I don't, and especially if you are in the field, please add your comments. So far, my posts on the topic of charter schools have received comments from an employee of a Phoenix area bricks-and-mortar charter school, the CEO of Pinnacle Education (an Arizona Cyber School), and a cyber teacher from Pennsylvania. I plan to respond to their comments directly when I have time.)
I have more information about the $6.4 million overfunding of Charter Cyber Schools and what I believe is an attempt to write that overfunding into law.
I've been in email contact about this issue with Nancy Young Wright, who is my State Representative here in LD-26. (She stepped into Lena Saradnik's position when Lena had to step down for health reasons.) Wright has acted exactly as I hoped a Rep would act. She has taken my questions seriously (she has questions about the legislation herself) and forwarded my emails to other legislators who might be interested and knowledgeable. She also forwarded them to Jennifer Anderson, Legislative Research Analyst for the House Committee on Education (K-12). Thanks and kudos to Wright for performing her constituent duties so admirably.
From Anderson, I received a link to an October, 2007, Performance Audit of the Technology Assisted Project-Based Instruction Program (TAPBI) Program. It's a long report which I'll work my way through, but it will take time. Trying to pull out the and interpret the salient passages from these reports takes the diligence and concentration of a Talmudic scholar. If anyone wants to help me wade in, thank you in advance. I'd appreciate the assistance.
Right now, let's mull over a few passages from the short statement at the beginning of the Performance Audit.
Although statute limits funding to 1.0 ADM per student, errors resulted in about 6,800 TAPBI students being funded at 1.17 ADM each, on average, for a total overfunding of about $6.4 million.
This means, what I read in the Citizen article I cited in an earlier post is correct. Cyber Schools were overfunded by $6.4 million. It looks like the inference I drew from the article was correct as well -- that Cyber Schools were double dipping by taking more money for students who were also enrolled in other schools than they should have taken.
So I have a question: Did the state make these Cyber School refund the money -- the ones who overstated the amount they were allowed for students with dual enrollment? I'm pretty sure that a financial balancing is done between charter schools and the state toward the end of the school year, when the state figures out whether each school's projected enrollment was the same as the actual enrollment. If it was lower, the schools have to return the money. If it was higher, they get more from the state. (I think I've got this right. Someone chime in if I don't.) Was this $6.4 million part of that balancing act, and was the money returned to the state? I certainly hope so. If not, it sounds like someone is guilty of robbery of tax dollars, and the state is complicit in the theft.
Here is the next passage:
At $5,526 per pupil in fiscal year 2006, TAPBI schools spent $1,223 less per pupil than brick-and-mortar schools largely because TAPBI schools do not provide transportation and food services, and they have lower plant operation costs. However, costs could be further reduced, particularly for software and management agreements, and charter school administration.
I need to do more research to find out if Cyber Schools are given less than brick-and-mortar charter schools. I think the amount they receive is the same as what charter schools normally receive. But here, I'm way above my pay grade, and I need to dig for answers, or have one of you supply them to me.
What jumps out at me is the statement that the cost of Cyber Schooling "could be further reduced, particularly for software and management agreements, and charter school administration."
Cyber Schools are getting more money than they need, according to the audit. And yet, HB2816 wants to give them even more money than they're currently allowed to receive. Something is very wrong when the auditor suggests a reduction in funds, and legislators go for an increase. We're in a budget crisis, folks, and schools are starving for lack of adequate funding. Why would legislators want to increase funding for schools that are possibly getting too much money already?
I have a whole lot more to write about, but let me make one more point and save the rest for later. HB2816, which allows 125% of the normal allotment for students who have dual enrollment in a Cyber School and another school, is mainly sponsored by Republicans, many of whom are not normally friends of education. A few of them have Zero Ratings from the Arizona Education Association, which means to me, they vote against school funding. (For those of you who know legislators, the Republican sponsors are Rich Crandall, Kirk Adams, Mark Anderson, Judy Burges and Andrew Tobin.) Oddly, the one Democratic sponsor is David Lujan, who is a friend of education. Maybe he knows something I don't about the bill, but until I find out differently, I definitely question his judgement here.
So I ask myself, why would Republicans, many of whom are not fond of educational funding, want to increase funding for this one kind of school? I won't suggest that any of them stand to profit from the legislation, because I have no information to make me think that's true. But I do know that Charter Schools are the Republicans' baby, and maybe increased funding for what they consider "the anti-public school" is a completely different animal than what they love to refer to as "throwing money" at public schools.
More later.
"It's like Hitler just invaded France," said a source in the moderate wing of the Pima County Republican Party of Joe Higgin's likely primary challenge of Ann Day for Supervisor in District 1.
That's not just Godwin's law in effect; my source only meant that a war that everyone knew was coming, and that many have been reluctant to fight, had finally arrived.
The war analogies kept coming, "what has been a cold war in the Party just went hot," said my deep throat.
As my source sees it, Al Melvin has just declared war on the establishment, pro-business, moderate Republicans with Higgin's entry into the race. Higgin is understood among Republican circles to be merely a stalking horse for Melvin with no hope of actually winning, but plenty of potential to make some joyful noise.
The newly declared war is for control of the Republican Party in Pima County. The establishment has been suffering the guerrilla attacks of the uber-conservatives for years now—taunting RINO hunts, primary challenges, a burgeoning far-right blog swarm, Graf's campaign against Kolbe and eventual nomination upon his retirement (and Kolbe's and the RNC's refusal to support that GOP nominee against a Democrat)—have all been skirmishes in the smoldering range war for the soul of the GOP in Pima and Arizona, more broadly.
Melvin's recruiting a movement conservative to challenge a GOP institution like Day was the last straw—or, more aptly, the assassin's bullet that set off a total war.
But perhaps Melvin has finally overplayed his hand. While Melvin is obviously hoping that a primary contest in the overlapping Supervisory District 1 will help stir his own base in his primary fight for Arizona Senate in LD 26 against moderate Republican Pete Hershberger, it could also finally prompt the establishment into a full scale counter-assault that could undermine Republican efforts to retake lost ground in LD 26.
If the GOP's civil war starts getting major press coverage, which a primary against Day is almost certain to attract, it could make what has been a quiet internal vendetta into a fully-fledged public feud. That could possibly distract or disgruntle voters in unrelated races where there is no primary challenge, like Bee's bid to retake CD 8 for the GOP.
Back to the military analogies: it's hard to take your objective without strategic unity of force. The Republican party nationally, state-wide, and now locally, is more divided against itself than it has been in recent memory as the cresting force of movement conservatism smashes into an establishment that has been willing to tolerate them only so long as they were winning elections.
And the movement conservatives haven't been winning, prompting movement conservatives to attack moderates even more vociferously in a zealous attempt at ritual purification of the Party to bring back the favor of the electoral gods. In reality, America is just fed up with the discredited anti-government politics of the far Right, even as anti-government dogma has become unquestionable in the GOP.
Voters' disgust plus a bewildering and vicious civil war in the Republican Party adds up to strategic advantage for Democrats at all levels. Most especially, Melvin's sneak attack on Ann Day (and by proxy the establishment of the Pima GOP) bodes well for the merry band of Democrats seeking to hold gains in LD 26.
by David Safier
(For background on this post, link to Part 1 and Part 2 of this series.)
Last Tuesday, 800 Charter Cyber School advocates gathered in Phoenix to demand, "Don't cut our funding!" There has been a move afoot, they were told, to cut some 20% from funding for Cyber Schools. The event was covered by the Citizen and the Arizona Republic.
Who wants to cut funding for Cyber Schools? That's not clear. Certainly not Tom Horne, who spoke at the rally against funding cuts. The Citizen article says cuts have been "proposed during closed-door budget meetings."
After reading the articles a few times trying to figure out what the story was, I found a clue in The Citizen article. Apparently, "last year the auditor general concluded that the program [which included funding for Cyber Schools] had been overfunded by about $6.4 million." The reason is: "40 percent of distance learning students were concurrently enrolled in brick-and-mortar schools."
It makes sense that the state should spend no more than 100% for a student, right? If that student splits time between two schools, each school should get a piece of the pie. But I guess right now, Cyber Schools are claiming more than their due amount for some of these students.
I'm not good at reading bills, but I think this all revolves around HB 2816. In its current form, it states:
If a pupil is enrolled in a school district or charter school and also participates in the technology assisted project-based instruction program, the sum of the average daily membership, . . . shall not exceed 1.0.
Currently, in other words, each student should have one student's worth of funds following him/her, and right now $6.4 million is being double dipped by the Cyber Schools.
But there is a revision to that section of the bill adding this clause to the end of the previous sentence:
EXCEPT THAT IF THE PUPIL IS PARTICIPATING IN A JOINT TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION DISTRICT THE AVERAGE DAILY MEMBERSHIP SHALL NOT EXCEED 1.25.
I read that to mean, if a student is enrolled in a Cyber School, the state can kick in another 25% to the regular student allotment. (Here is the text of HB2816.)
This, I think, is what it's all about. Not that Cyber Schools are in danger of getting less money than other Charter Schools, but that students enrolled in both Cyber and brick-and-mortar schools should get 25% more.
If I'm right, the entire campaign by the industry's lobbyist, the Arizona Distance Education Association, and Tom Horne's righteous defense of Cyber School funding, is a lie, or, to be fair, a quarter truth. They are in fact defending extra funding going to Cyber Schools, when they claim they are trying to stop a cut in funds.
(For some background on the lobbying campaign, here is an email from the lobbying group sent to parents and others. It ends with a list of legislators to contact.)
The legislature, at a time of budget restraints, shouldn't be slipping in extra funding so that Cyber Schools can get more than is their fair share of state funds.
Unfortunately, the State House
did not vote on the 30 minute recess in elementary school bill, HB
2037.
It has now gone to a Conference Committee of Senate and House members for clarification on charter schools. According to Rep. Mark Anderson, Republican of Mesa, the bill should come up for a vote again next week in the full house.
I urge you to e-mail your local state representatives to support HB 2037 which states that every public school grades 1-6 have at least a 30 minute recess period for the children.
This bill is crucial for the total development of the youngsters. Some schools are cutting recess to improve their AIMS scores. Research tells us that these students perform better on tests with a recess break of at least 30 minutes.
by David Safier
A building on Palo Verde just north of I-10 is the home of Arizona Virtual Academy. It's a Charter Cyber School that gives online education to Arizona students all over the state. Because it's a charter school (if you're confused about charter schools, here is a primer), the students pay nothing. The state pays AVA for each student enrolled.
Arizona Virtual Academy is part of a publicly traded company, K12 Inc. The company was co-founded by William Bennett, Reagan's Education Secretary and author of "The Book of Virtues," though he left the company in 2005 when he posed "a thought experiment about public policy" on his radio show suggesting that if black babies were aborted, the crime rate would go down (He had offered to resign a few years earlier when his gambling habit came to light).
In 2007, according to K12 Inc.'s prospectus, it brought in $14 million in revenue from Arizona. In other words, $14 million in taxpayer money was collected by Arizona Virtual Academy. That was 10% of the company's total revenue.
Nothing wrong with making a profit. Nothing wrong with publicly traded companies (it's trading at about $23 right now, by the way). But this for profit company makes its money by charging Arizona and other states to educate their children, and we have a right to know how the money is spent, and how much of it goes for profit and for expenses not directly related to education.
AVA has no school buildings to house its students. They work from home -- though this isn't "home schooling," which is not state funded and is something else entirely. The students are furnished with books and online materials. They're even given a laptop computer to use and an internet hookup if they need it. They have interaction with teachers, though I don't know how much, or how frequently. Since the students are spread all over the state, I doubt if there is much in the way of regular face-to-face contact.
So, should Arizona Virtual Academy get as much money per student as a charter school with a building and teachers who meet with their students on a daily basis?
My answer is no, unless they can convince the state and people like me that they are using our tax dollars for the purpose of education and not to make large profits at our expense.
This post has an accusatory tone to it, and I admit there's a lot I don't know about AVA and the other Arizona Charter Cyber Schools, so maybe I'm being unfair. But these are questions haven't been asked much by the traditional media or, so far as I know, by the state legislature, and they need to be asked, and answered.
by David Safier
This is the first of what will be a series of posts about Arizona's Charter Schools, and more specifically about Arizona's online charter schools, also known as "Cyber Schools."
The question I'm trying to answer for myself is, Should a Cyber School, with no building and no daily classroom meetings of staff and students, get the same amount of money per student from the state as a bricks-and-mortar Charter School?
The Cyber Schools and their lobbying organization, the Arizona Distance Education Association, say, Yes.
To this point, the Arizona Legislature says Yes as well. But there is a question whether it might be changing its mind.
And I say, No, unless a rigorous examination of the Cyber Schools' books (which has never been done) shows that they use their state-allotted funds wisely to further their students' educations.
(Remember, I may be a Tax-And-Spend Liberal, but I believe in spending money wisely. I don't want my federal tax dollars making Halliburton executives obscenely rich, and I don't want to give state tax dollars to schools only to have a portion spent on their students and the rest going into their pockets.)
First, I need to explain the mechanics of Charter Schools as I understand them, because most people I've talked to don't really know how they work.
Think of a Charter School as a hybrid of a public and a private school -- a publicly funded private school, if you will. An individual or a group of individuals say, "I want to start a school. Here is how it will operate." If the idea is OK'd, the school gets a Charter, the newly created school gathers together students, and the state pays the school on a per student basis. The students pay nothing. Next year, the school gets another infusion of state money based on its student count. And so on, as long as the school stays in operation.
Charter schools have to follow some state guidelines, including giving their students the AIMS test. That's different from private schools. But in many ways, charter schools operate independent of state or school district interference.
Unlike many of my union-supporting brother and sister teachers, I like the idea of charter schools. I'm a strong believer in teachers unions, but I'm also an alternative education guy at heart, and I like the idea of parents and students being offered a number of educational alternatives. Other teachers have problems with the concept that I understand but don't agree with.
But here in Arizona, the Charter School concept has run amok. The state has more charter schools than any other state (I don't know if that's in raw numbers or as a percentage of the population. I'll check that out and include it later). The law was created by conservative legislators as a first step toward creating a voucher system in Arizona,so they gave a Charter to nearly anyone who had a pulse and a proposal for a school. Soon, they figured, the Charter School movement would morph into a full blown voucher system, where private schools of all kinds are given state money.
The best charter schools are excellent. I applaud their founders and staff, and I'm delighted for their students. Others are lousy. Some of the worst schools have folded over the years, but since the state has a minimal budget for people to actually visit and observe the schools, we have no idea how many bad charter schools are out there. (And no, "the invisible hand of the marketplace" will not get rid of bad charter schools. It doesn't work that way.)
Which brings us to Cyber Charter Schools. Students who sign up for these schools work out of their homes. The school supplies them with materials -- online and hard copy -- and the students are required to work a certain number of hours each day, complete assignments, write papers, take tests, and so on. They are in phone and email contact with teachers, and some schools have group events where the students meet and do things together on a semi-regular basis.
These Cyber Schools get the same amount of money per student as bricks-and-mortar Charter Schools. Does that make sense to you? It doesn't to me.
I'll be looking deeper into the Cyber School Question in future posts. I'm beginning a conversation with some state legislators to see what they know about Cyber Schools (and what they don't know, which I suspect is plenty.)
I want your input as well. Do you know people enrolled in Cyber Schools? Do you have information I don't? After all, the concept of using the latest technology to further education is a good one, and if this is all legit and the students thrive, then I'm for it. But I want to know more. I want to find out if the schools are actually educating their students, and if the state is getting its money's worth.
by David Safier
On the one hand, a bill mandating recess in Arizona elementary schools not a big deal, because it's such a no brainer. Who wouldn't be for allowing children to have a run-around-and-laugh-out-loud break during the school day?
But on the other hand, it's a big deal, because many elementary school students don't have that much needed break. And it's also a big deal for this blog, because a few of our regular commenters have earned bragging rights, since they have been intimately involved in the process.
At this point, the Senate has passed House Bill 2037, which says students must have at least 30 minutes of recess. I think there are caveats built in to allow districts to wiggle out of the mandates, but I don't know the details of the bill in its current form. Maybe our resident experts can help me out.
And it's not a bill yet. It still needs to pass in the House.
"Wasting time" is an incredibly valuable part of good education, as any good teacher knows. It can be a teacher schmoozing with students about a movie or a TV show, or a celebration of someone's birthday, or some inane little game the teacher has the students participate in, while assuring them there won't be a test at the end of the game. It's part of establishing the atmosphere of a good classroom. Recess is one of those important types of "wasting time," when students can let out their nervous energy and pent up emotions by hanging out and running and kicking a ball and playing jacks, or just sitting on a bench talking with friends if that's what they choose to do. If I have to choose between free recess and structured PE for K-5, I'll choose recess every time. Both is better still.
UPDATE: According to commenter steve j gall, "The school districts can't wiggle out of this mandate because it states a 30 minute recess plus a 20 minute lunch." He has also been asked by the bill's author (Rep. Anderson, a Mesa Republican) to appear at the House Education Committee session. And commenter Mariana urges everyone to write to Reps in their districts in support of the bill.
District 26
Nancy Young Wright D nyoungwright@azleg.gov
Pete Hershberger R phershberger@azleg.gov
District 27
Phil Lopes D plopes@azleg.gov
Olivia Cajero Bedford D ocajerobedford@azleg.gov
District 28
David Bradley D dbradley@azleg.gov
Steve Farley D sfarley@azleg.gov
District 29
Linda Lopez D llopez@azleg.gov
Tom Prezelski D tprezelski@azleg.gov
District 30
Marian McClure R mmcclure@azleg.gov
Jonathan Paton R jpaton@azleg.gov
An Unrelated Note: I keep finding new reasons to be proud I'm part of Blog for Arizona. The most recent is Mike's ridiculously democratic (small "d") idea of opening the blog to one-timers who have something to say. The first entry is Mickey Duniho's post (two down from this one) about the need to recount the RTA election ballots. The papers have written about this topic from a reporter's vantage point, but Mickey is in the thick of the local Election Integrity group and is able to explain the issue in a way no reporter can match. An excellent start that shows the potential of this experiment.
Recently, I had the opportunity to have a nice conversation with newly-elected Oro Valley Councilpersons Bill Garner and Salette Latas.
We discussed their astounding primary victories in which both of them managed to net over 60% of the primary vote, placing both of them directly on the Council from the primary: a first for an Oro Valley town election. In doing so, they beat three incumbents, knocking one of them out of the race and leaving the final two playing musical chairs for the final seat in the June general election.
We were joined in our discussion by Art Segal, the Bloggitor (my neologism of blogger/editor, like it?) of the Let Oro Valley Excel, or LOVE, blog. Art is something of a blog hero in my book: he stood up to legal threats and some fairly slimy political intimidation tactics by the Oro Valley Board through their Town Attorney before and during the town's election.
We discussed the many land-use, development, budget, tax, and water issues facing many of the swift-growing cities and towns of the desert Southwest. The conversation runs about an hour. Here is a chronology in case you are only interested in particular parts of our discussion:
1:00 What’s Happening in Oro Valley?
5:00 Motivation for Change
7:00 Transparent Government Popular Uprising
9:00 The Strategic Campaign Plan
13:00 The Vestar Tax Scam
17:00 Citizens Organize to Fight Back
18:00 The Online Campaign
20:00 The Coming General Election
25:00 The Issues the Next Council Will Face
28:00 Arroyo Grande
43:00 Zoning Hi-Jinks
45:00 Naranja Mega-Park
54:00 Growth Politics in Arizona (sorry, some brief audio difficulties)
by David Safier
If you're hoping to get an answer to the headline question, "Who gave the green light to the Tim Bee ad?" you won't find it here. Sorry. Today I tried, unsuccessfully, to answer it.
I called the office of Joel Wirth, the Chief Financial Officer of Chandler School District, whose office number is listed on the Arizona Secretary of State's website as the contact for the Educational Financial Reform Group. That's the lobbying group behind the ad "thanking" Tim Bee for being a friend of education. I left a message on his machine and talked to his assistant, who said he would return my call. He hasn't.
To be fair, Mr. Wirth is probably a busy guy, and he may not consider me worthy of an immediate response. But in Daniel Scarpinato's original article on the topic in the Star, he wrote, "The spokesman for the Chandler Unified School District, which oversees the finances and founded the group, did not return phone calls." So this seems like a pattern of ducking questions. And in the long run, he's not doing himself any favors. He's raising suspicions about his actions, and my hunch is that true impetus behind the ad lies elsewhere.
Since I lack the hard information I wish I had, I'm going to use my 30 years of experience in public schools to take a venture into "creative journalism," which means I'm going to make stuff up that I think explains how this ad came about. If I'm wrong, I will be happy to have someone correct me, and I will gladly print the real story. That's what I want, the real story.
I don't think the school districts that pooled their lobbying funds to create EFRG had the intent of skirting the law to create a political ad for Bee, even though that was the result. That's not the way school district administrators work, in my experience. They're looking out for what they think is best for their districts. Even though I disagreed with my administration on a regular basis, I never saw them pull this kind of a stunt.
The districts pooled their money to lobby for the Career Ladder Program for their districts. It was a reasonable investment -- a few thousand dollars each with a possible return of higher salaries for their teachers.
They hired the lobbying firm, Public Policy Partners, headed by John Kaites, to carry the ball. Kaites is an ex-legislator who is a big Tim Bee supporter. Here's where I think the problem arose. Kaites decided he would try for a two-fer. First, he would score the Career Ladder legislation for the districts, which is what he was paid to do. Then he would give Bee all kinds of public recognition that would help him in his campaign against Giffords. I have no idea whether Bee had any knowledge of what was going on.
I can almost hear Kaites saying to EFRG, "Get some of your people up to Phoenix. Bee will address them. We'll film it, cut it into an ad and give Bee a big public thank you. It'll build you some good will you can use to your advantage in the future." The district reps said, "Sure," and the ad came together.
I doubt the school people considered the ramifications of creating a political ad with school monies, which is a violation of state law. If they had, I think they would have nixed the idea. School districts tend to be very sensitive about bad press, so I can't imagine they would take this kind of risk knowingly. Actually, it was Kaites' job to warn them of the danger and caution against the ad. Instead, I think he pushed it, then had the clever idea of leaving the group's name off the ad so there were no fingerprints.
Let me repeat, the sequence of events I've presented is pure conjecture. But it fits the facts. I hope someone will come forward and clear this up. I don't think this story is over yet. We need the people involved to clarify what parts they played in this ill-conceived, publicly funded campaign ad for Bee.
by Michael Bryan
I am reminded by the Bee complaint (and legal eagles with whom I consult on these matters) that the FEC currently only has two members, which means it does not have a
quorum and cannot conduct any official business.
This is why the DNC
complaint against McCain for promising to take public funds to secure a multi-million-dollar loan and then exceeding the FEC
primary caps has not been acted on, either. The appointments to the FEC are tied
up over a dispute between Republicans who want their entire slate of appointees approved in a single vote (because some of them are just too atrocious even for Republicans to be seen voting for), and
Democrats who want individual up or down votes on each nominee.
If this dispute is not resolved, the FEC will not be able to issue checks for public financing of the fall campaign, and the FEC also will not be able to address the complaint against Bee (though it may be assigned to an investigative staff member).
Tim Bee's campaign may have legal liability if there is evidence to show that his campaign coordinated this ad with the Educational Financial Reform Group (EFRG). Proof of such co-ordination could possibly be contained in the b-roll of the footage shot to produce the ad, which may be why Cox Communications and Public Policy Partners who created the ad have so far proven unwilling to release that material to the media. We'll see if they are more cooperative with the FEC investigators when they demand access to that material. Wouldn't it be convenient if that material were somehow destroyed or lost in an administrative SNAFU in the interim?
The fines, if any, against the EFRG and/or the school districts will likely not be too severe; probably 100-200% of the amount in violation ($16K, we know of so far). But in extreme cases, the fines can start with a base of $10K and add as much as 1000% of the amount in violation. So there are potential fines of approaching $200K involved, but such fines would not be applied to Bee's campaign unless he coordinated with the maker of the ad.
There is also the issue of just who the heck the EFRG actually is. Who are it's board of directors and officers? How are they organized and how do they report their activities? What is its budget and how is has it been spent? What is the organization's charter and does it actually provide for lobbying expenditures? Who actually made the decision to spend public funds in this manner? There needs to be much more transparency about these questions if public funds are to be spent to influence public policy. So far, none of those questions have been answered to my satisfaction.
There are really two issues here, however: a legal issue, and a moral issue. It is not clear at this point whether the Bee campaign did anything legally wrong themselves. But it appears that the EFRG organization may have broken both federal and Arizona elections laws. Will they be held to account for it? Whoever 'they' may be?
But even if this instance of electioneering were perfectly legal, which I doubt, the school districts' spending district tax dollars in support of a candidate rather than on the education of our children is just wrong. Considering the the base funding rate for a pupil in Arizona is just over $6K, a year's worth of education for two children was spent on this silly "Thank You" to Bee.
by David Safier
(TASL) In my ideal world, teachers would be paid considerably more, both to reward them for the difficulty of the work and to attract the best candidates to the field.
In my less-than-ideal-but-better-than-it-is-now world, teachers would have their college loans forgiven for each of the first five years they teach.
We seem to be edging toward the latter. Here are a few ways for teachers to pay for college by committing to teach when they're through.
In Arizona, the Mathematics Science and Special Education Teacher Student Loan Forgiveness Program pays for up to five years of college tuition for students who agree to teach math, science or special ed. Unfortunately, funding only allows for 500 people to take part. David Schapira, D-Tempe, who taught for awhile himself, wants to increase the budget for the program and expand it to include teachers who agree to teach in rural areas.
Beginning with the 2008-2009 school year, the federal government will implement "the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant Program that provides grants of up to $4,000 per year to students who intend to teach in a public or private elementary or secondary school that serves students from low-income families."
Programs like these will encourage more students to consider a teaching career because of the free or reduced-price education. After five years, if they don't like teaching, they can move on. The programs cost money, of course, but they're not as costly as raising all teacher salaries, so it's more likely they'll be put into practice.
It's a start, and a hell of a lot better than the situation today, where beginning teachers are paid crummy wages, and "Oh, you remember you have to pay back those tens of thousands of dollars in student loans, right?" Maybe if these programs show results, they'll be expanded to include more potential teachers.
by David Safier
National Democrats filed a federal complaint against state Senate President and Republican Congressional candidate Tim Bee, claiming an ad on his behalf was an illegal campaign contribution. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee filed the complaint with the Federal Elections Commission this week. It names a collection of school board members who paid for the ad but did not identify themselves as responsible for it.. . .
"A reasonable person cannot possibly interpret this ad to be anything other than express advocacy," the complaint reads.
It goes on to say: "Airing in the midst of a heated campaign for United States Congress, and airing across the Congressional district and beyond a state senator's current legislative district, it purports to 'thank' a federal candidate for his involvement with a state bill that has already passed the Arizona Senate."
Stay tuned for further developments.
by David Safier
(TASL) Many pixels have been spent discussing whether the "Thank you, Senator Bee" ad was an illegal use of school district funds to influence the outcome of an election. (The right answer, by the way, is Yes, it was an illegal use of funds.) Meanwhile, Tim Bee, friend of education, has been working hard to cripple funding for education.
This is the guy school districts are spending money to praise?
Bee is one of the prime movers behind what the Citizen refers to as an "absurd repeal of property tax," which passed the House today and is headed to the Gov's desk for what I hope is another use of her invaluable Veto Pen.
This is a property tax that was suspended in 2006, when the state was a bit more flush, until the 2009-2010 fiscal year. Clearly, we're not flush now. Without those tax dollars, we're going to be in even worse shape than is currently projected, but the legislature voted to repeal it outright.
The biggest winners are businesses -- no surprise, since Republicans are the force behind the repeal -- and the biggest losers are our school-aged children. (Other agencies are affected too, but I'm blogging about education, so I'm keeping my sights on school funding.)
So why are school districts getting together to sing the praises of Bee, who did one nice thing for the schools by pushing to extend Career Ladders to all school districts? Funding Career Ladders takes money, but Bee' repeal vote says, "Sorry, we're cutting off one of schools' funding sources."
School districts, School board associations and Teachers' unions all spoke out against the property tax repeal, but Bee voted for it. So remind me, why was tax money for schools spent to give Bee a big, sloppy, public Thank You kiss?
Oh, and remember Tom Boone (R-Peoria) who was slated to get his very own Thank You ad before the campaign was canceled? He voted for the repeal as well. Paula Aboud (D-Tucson), who got a little Thank You mailer, voted against the repeal, the only one of the three supporting adequate school funding.
by David Safier
The Bee "This is not a political ad, just a Thank You" political ad has been pulled from the airwaves. (Kudos, by the way, to Star reporter Daniel Scarpinato, who has put together two excellent articles about the controversy, filled with valuable information. I've criticized Scarpinato in the past, often in emails I've sent him, but these articles have been examples of good reporting in the public interest.)
The central question -- were these ads an example of school district funds used to "influence the outcome of an election," which is expressly forbidden by state law? -- has not been answered. A simple, "We did nothing wrong, but we won't do it again," is not a sufficient response.
So let's look at the situation. A $16,000 television buy is made to run this ad, not just in Bee's district, but in the larger CD-8 area where he's running against Gabrielle Giffords. The ad says Tim Bee is "Fighting for fairness in southern Arizona," even though the bill in question is intended to spread educational dollars equally all over Arizona.
According to the Star article, "Bee has said he had little knowledge and no involvement in the ad." Here is how this English teacher translates that statement: "When the ad was being created and televised, I knew something about what was going on, but I wasn't involved in actually creating the ad or planning its distribution." In the political trade, this is known as a "non-denial denial." Bee, who has asked that the ad be taken down now that there is controversy, apparently thought it was fine before, when he knew a "little" about the ad. How much is a "little"? Bee ain't sayin'.
This ad was targeted to do the most good for Bee in his CD-8 race, probably with a wink and a nod from Bee himself. It was created and aired using educational funding with the purpose of influencing the outcome of an election, which state law says is a No-no.
The Education Finance Reform Group which put out the ad also sent out a mailer "thanking" Sen. Paula Aboud (D-Tucson). I assume it only went out to people in her district. The lobbying group won't say how much it spent on the mailer, though I'm guessing it's less than the $16,000 it spent on the Bee ad. (In an email to me, by the way, Aboud said she knows nothing about the mailer and hasn't seen it.)
The Education Finance Reform Group had also planned to run a TV ad for Rep. Tom Boone (R-Peoria) before all this fuss, but the ad has been cancelled. I'm going to guess the cost of the Boone ad would have been closer to the Bee ad than the Aboud mailer.
So here is what we have: Thank you's for TIM BEE!!!, paula aboud and TOM BOONE!!! If that smells like nonpartisan thank you's to your nose, to mine it reeks of misuse of tax dollars by a group of school districts trying to help two Republican with their election bids, and trying to cover their tracks by throwing a very small bone to a Democrat.
To put the final piece in place, here is what Scarpinato says of John Kaites, the head of Public Policy Partners, the lobbying firm that created the ads:
The lobbyist for the group, John Kaites, contributed $2,300 to Bee in November. And Kaites, a former lawmaker, was the co-sponsor of a fundraising event for Bee that same month in Phoenix.
If the lobbying firm and its school district clients wanted to thank three legislators in the most nonpartisan, cost effective way, they would have created one TV ad praising and thanking all three together. The message would be "When legislators from both sides of the aisle work together to benefit education, everybody wins." Now that's a good, nonpartisan message. But I guess it puts REPUBLICANS!!!! and democrats on an equal footing, and that's not the message Kaites was going for.
by David Safier
I want to add to Mike's post, Bee the Recidivist? (Damn you, Mike, for using words in your headline I have to look up! ["Recidivist" means repeat offender, for the vocab-challenged among us. It's one of them high fallutin' legal terms.])
The ad praising Tim for his work on a bill that would make the Career Ladders Program available to all Arizona school districts has been running regularly on cable TV news. As Tedski pointed out on Rum, Romanism and Rebellion a few days ago, the ad did not have a statement at the end saying who was behind it. I assumed it came from Bee's campaign.
Nope. According to an article in the Star, it was paid for using money provided by school districts through a lobbying group, The Education Finance Reform Group. The Phoenix lobbying firm, Public Policy Partners, put together the ad. The lobbyists, as well as people from the school districts paying for the ad, say it's nothing more than a Thank You to Bee for supporting education.
Let me repeat. The money behind this ad came from state tax dollars given to school districts and paid to a lobbying firm. Tim Bee's hands are clean, he says. Didn't know a thing about it.
Let's look at the ad and see if it's accurate and nothing more than a simple Thank You from grateful schools.
The ad says, because of a bill sponsored by Bee, "all teachers in Southern Arizona will receive greater pay for performance." Two things here: First, all teachers will not receive greater pay. The bill would allow every district to participate in the Career Ladders Program, which means that teachers who wish to take coursework and participate in education-based activities will get extra pay. The ad makes it sound like it's a salary boost for teachers, which is very popular with voters these days. Second, the ad says, "all teachers in southern Arizona." In fact, it's all teachers in the entire state, not just Southern Arizona. If this group wants to thank Bee for improving education in the state, and not boost his chances to beat Gabby Giffords in the CD-8 Congressional race, the ad would not specify "Southern Arizona."
At the end of the ad, the "southern Arizona" point is hammered home. In a graphic with Tim Bee's face in the foreground and an Arizona flag in the background, the words, "Fighting for fairness in southern Arizona" are written across the bottom, as the narrator reads them aloud. Again, the legislation includes the entire state, but the ad implies Bee is giving Southern Arizona something special.
This is no simple thank you. It's a big, wet, sloppy kiss planted on Tim Bee's forehead with the clear intent of furthering his campaign.
Representatives Paton and Farley have a nice, substantive discussion of the latest news from the State Legislature. A good example of how to play nice together, even when you disagree:
Link: Home builders push to limit impact fee increases - The Business Journal of Phoenix
What ever happened to Republicans being in favor of local control and smaller, less-intrusive government?
Now, it seems that they are only in favor of doing the bidding of big business in whatever way they can, by whatever means they can, with no philosophical justification whatever.
Tim Bee is now carrying water for Home Builder's Association of Central Arizona, forcing a two year delay before any new impact fees on new construction takes effect. These fees are far too low currently, not nearly recapturing the costs of infrastructure and services to new development. But Big Stucco doesn't like these fees, especially during a new home starts and sales downturn like we're now seeing. So Timmy is riding to the rescue by sponsoring a this new bill.
Is it because he feels that new growth in Tucson is already actually paying for itself with impact fees—in which case, he needs some schoolin'—or because he really, really badly needs to raise some major money, and the construction industry is one of the biggest sugar tits around for Arizona pols—in which case, isn't he putting the needs of McMansion builders ahead of the needs of his hometown?
Link: Same-sex marriage measure dealt blow.
Rep. Krysten Sinema managed to maneuver an amendment onto the GOP proposed anti-gay marriage referendum that would have granted certain legal rights to domestic partners. The amendment is widely seen as effectively killing the bill because many GOP lawmakers have now withdrawn their support as a result of the amendment.
While it is almost always useful to thwart the legislative agenda of the GOP, Sinema's amendment also reveals the GOP's purely instrumental interest in this issue. They are only interested in using the meme of "defending marriage" to bash gays, they are not interested in actually "protecting" marriage (maybe because they know it's not really under any threat).
Anyone who has an ounce of sense recognizes that that marriage is hardly threatened by gay couples doing it; if anything is under threat by gays marrying, it is the gays' cultural power as hip outsiders. But this backpedal by so many in the GOP on this bill which "protects" marriage, merely because domestic partners (possibly including gays) got some ancillary rights regarding inheritance and medical decision-making with the Sinema's amendment, truly reveals the GOP's political agenda.
They will only accept a bill that will purely and exclusively thump the gays, not one that "protects" marriage at the cost of some compromise on the issue of domestic partnership rights. Sinema's amendment applies to all domestic partners, potentially including gays, making the bill useless for the GOP's polemical purpose of mere gay-bashing to energize their Christian Fundamentalist base.
I would also note that I'm proud and pleased that several members of the GOP caucus stood up to the homophobes and bashers in their own party. Reps. Michele Reagan of Scottsdale and Pete Hershberger, Marian McClure and Jennifer Burns of Tucson all did the right thing by voting to protect the rights of domestic partners. I suspect that, one way or other, their party will try to make them pay for their temerity.
by David Safier
Yesterday I wrote about a bill in the legislature to have the state take over Phoenix's Roosevelt School District for 3 years. Is it a good idea? I asked. Has it been done elsewhere?
I did some research. Yes, it has been done elsewhere. Sometimes the state takes over a school district, sometimes a city does. The research has been done. The findings are in. The scholars are in agreement: they don't know if it has any effect.
The largest experiment is in Philadelphia, where the state took over the school district in 2002. They kept some schools as they were, turned some into charter schools and gave some to private education companies to run. They found some general improvement, but other districts in the state improved as well, so the researchers couldn't attribute the changes to the takeover. Private companies, even those putting extra money into their schools, did no better than standard public or charter schools. Not even the charters run by universities showed significant gains over the others. The only factor that seemed to help was providing extra staff support.
Another study indicated that city takeovers of districts are more effective than state takeovers, but the difference isn't overwhelming.
For me, the morals of this story are: A state takeover isn't a bad thing if it's done well, and if a district is truly dysfunctional, it might help straighten things out a little; and, No one has found the magic bullet that makes reluctant students from poor families become better students. Recent study after recent study, including ones conducted by our charter- and private-school-friendly Department of Education, don't show significant gains made by charter or private schools.
Folks, education is a very difficult task. People who say they know sure fire ways to fix things are fooling themselves, or they're snake oil salesmen trying to fool others. We've got to keep looking for ways to improve -- and we need to put enough money into education to put plans into practice -- but we should keep our expectations within reasonable bounds. We need to aim for progress, not miracles.
by David Safier
Fine the Governor if the Arizona legislature doesn't meet the April 15 ELL funding deadline? That sounds grossly unfair. And yet . . .
The attorney for the parents suing over ELL funding says Napolitano could do more to move this thing forward, even though the actual funding is the responsibility of the legislature. The lawyer claims, "Whether for political reasons or otherwise, the governor clearly has not done everything she could to bring Arizona into compliance with the court's order."
I find myself agreeing with the lawyer, even though I think it's unfair to put the blame on Napolitano. She is playing politics with this. Janet wants the funding, but as she does so often, she's triangulating, avoiding taking a strong stand so she doesn't alienate anyone.
And let's talk about unfair. The suit over ELL funding was filed in 1992, and in 2000, the courts ruled for the children. The state government has stalled ever since. If we're going to weigh what's fair and unfair, I'd say 16 years of children denied an adequate education outweighs a fine on the Governor.
Don't tell these families to be patient. They should pull out all the stops to educate their children. If that means suing Janet to move things forward, I say, do it!
by David Safier
I didn't read an article saying that Independents' number one issue is education. My conclusion is based on a very informal, very unrepresentative sample. But I think it's reasonably valid.
Today I rang doorbells for Don Jorgensen who is running for the State House in LD-26. We only spoke to Independents, and one of our questions was, "What is the most important issue facing Arizona." Unprompted, the vast majority replied, "Education."
This was in a well-heeled neighborhood in Northeast Tucson, in the general vicinity of Sunrise and Campbell. As I said, it was not representative of Arizona at large. But this was definitely not a bunch of liberal Democrats. Most of them said they voted for Democrats and Republicans, depending on the candidate.
I desperately wanted to ask the people I talked to, "How are we going to pay to improve education in Arizona?" but I restrained myself. I suspect that if I did, however, they would not have said, "I'm willing to pay higher taxes."
The good news, from my standpoint, is that people get it -- our education is not what it should be. (I got similar results a few years ago when I was calling people in a more randomized survey.) The not-so-good news, however, is that I think most people want the tooth fairy to leave some money under the legislature's pillow to pay for it.
But at least people recognize there is a problem. That's a start.
by David Safier
(TASL) I agree with almost everything Tim Bee said in his op ed, Goal: Affordable, accessible universities. But there's a serious problem here. The most powerful man in the Arizona Senate has floated all kind of feel-good educational proposals without a penny of new funding to back them up.
The op ed is nothing more than an empty piece of campaign rhetoric to show how "serious" he is about education.
Bee wants better education to attract high paying jobs. He wants to lower the K-12 dropout rate. He wants more access to a college education in rural areas, and lower tuition so more high school graduates can afford college.
I agree, Tim. And, powerless as I am to change things, I can get away with saying, "Our education system should be better," and leave it at that. I don't have the power of the purse. But the state budget is your baby, Tim. If you think better K-12 schools and more affordable college education are essential, you have to stand up and say, "The only way we can accomplish this is to generate more revenue, and that means raising taxes."
Much like Ronald Reagan, you need to stand up on your hind legs and say, "Russell Pearce, tear down this tax wall!"
I'll be watching how the budget battles go, to see if Bee figures out any innovative ways to accomplish the lofty, unfunded goals he put forth in this op ed. If he does, I will doff my hat to him. If he doesn't, he will show himself to be just another shameless politician.
by David Safier
One of our readers, Steve Gall, a retired teacher, was up in Phoenix arguing in front of the Senate K-12 Committee that recess should be required in all elementary schools. (Steve is quoted in the article.)
Steve posted a comment about his experience at the end of my latest diatribe about after school sports:
I was up in Phoenix yesterday morning testifying before the Senate Education Committee to mandate a 30 minute recess period in the elementary schools. It was a humbling experience. The Committee voted 5-2 in favor of the bill! At least, it's a start to implementing physical education. Now, the bill will go to the full senate. We need to lobby our senators to pass this important bill. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks. Steve
So, are there any suggestions? If you read the article, you'll see some people object to the bill because it is another unfunded mandate for the schools. They say a half hour will have to be added to the school day, which will cost money the schools don't have.
My opinion is, we need recess and physical education in our schools. It's both anti-child and counterproductive to chain elementary students to their desks all day without giving them a chance to run around, shout and laugh out loud. I was a well-behaved, academically inclined child, but I remember looking forward to recess, and I think I came back to the classroom better able to think and learn because I had time to move my body and clear my head. That goes double for more active children.
I also believe that a half hour out of class is not a half hour lost to academic education. Education isn't merely a function of time. If you can get students to give their whole attentions to what's going on in class for a half hour, that's worth far more than an hour where the students are daydreaming.
Where do you think about this issue? Should schools be forced to provide a half hour of recess? If so, is there a way to convince our Senators to vote for the bill?
I just love to watch a good sparring match. I prefer mixed martial arts, but Emily Bittner (AZ Dems' Communications Director) taking apart House Republican Spokeman Barrett Marson is nearly as fun—and almost as bloody. Of course, your view of who wins the this ep of Horizon's One On One depends entirely on your sympathies heading in—there's not enough time to really have a substantive debate in this format, and Emily clearly knows that. So, she goes for the take-down and the tap-out like any good cage fighter. Enjoy!
Unable to summon the political will to control spending though they control the state legislature, the Republicans want to put the state on a starvation diet that will affect the health, education, public safety, and welfare of every Arizona citizen.
Their means for accomplishing their evisceration of the public fisc is House Concurrent Resolution 2038, which if passed would go on the 2008 ballot for voter consideration. Now that Taxpayer's Bills of Rights (TABORS) have been roundly discredited by the meltdown of public services in Colorado as a result of the adoption of a constitutional TABOR, Republicans seek another means to accomplish their goals. A lowered constitutional cap on the percentage of aggregate personal income government may spend is the means they've chosen in Arizona.
Arizona already has a 7.41% cap on government expenditures. The Republicans want to lower that by over a percentage point (about $2.2 billion in 2008). The resulting mandatory cuts would prevent our government from deciding to save, force massive cuts in services, and have many of the same deleterious effects as a TABOR.
The people of Arizona originally saw fit to limit the state's spending to 7% of aggregate personal income. In subsequent years, as the state was given responsibility for the health care of many citizens, long term care of the elderly and disabled, and construction of our children's schools, slightly more leeway was needed to meet these new obligations. That we have been able to get by with a modest additional 0.41% since the state's founding is quite remarkable and testimony to the normal parsimony of our elected officials.
These Republican anti-tax anarchists now want to slice more than a full percentage off the cap, regressing to far more below the original cap. There is no way the state government will be able to function and provide the essential services that a modern civil society requires. They want to return us to some ideological Golden Age of the 19th century in which government did little or nothing for its people, except, of course, for those already wealthy.
Their plan is irresponsible, underhanded, and disingenuously presented as a fiscal restraint, when it is actually just fiscal suicide.
My State Representatives, Steve Farley and David Bradley, are two of the good guys. They do a heck of good job and are just damned good liberal Democrats with solid progressive values. I don't mind that David is obsessed with the welfare of everyone's kids and Steve with his trains; I think it's charming, in fact.
And Steve is kind of freakishly into his job. His email Farleygrams are wonderfully informative, and he has a 100% perfect attendance and voting record—David's is good, too, of course, but Steve's a legislatin' machine. We are getting every dime's worth, and then some for the pittance we pay these guys.
If you want to subscribe to Steve's Farleygrams, fill in your email:
by David Safier
(TASL) No matter how you slice and dice the number, the possibility of cutting 282 positions from TUSD is terrible news. This isn't about trimming fat. It's about cutting into the live tissue and muscle of the school district.
The final number of cuts probably won't be that high. Typically, a District first reports the highest possible number of positions to be eliminated, then it figures out how to save some of the jobs. But if the number is half that, it will be terrible.
A perfect storm is sweeping across the nation, laying waste to state and local governments. We're in an economic downturn, so tax revenues are dropping, while the price of oil and other goods and services is increasing. Meanwhile, the federal government is cutting back on educational grants.
If we were funding education adequately before, if we had accumulated a sizable rainy day fund, we could ride this out with some judicious trimming. But we're starting with bare bones education, and we have no prior surpluses to fall back on.
This country is obsessed with the self destructive notion that our state governments are vastly overfunded and we're paying a ridiculous amount of taxes. So whenever the Arizona economy is good and the state has a nickel and a dime to rub together, the Republican legislature uses that as an excuse to cut taxes. Then when things get bad, we have no cushion.
The conservatives insist that cutting taxes further will stimulate the economy, and everything will be all right. Why we even allow them time to pack their bags before we run them out of town is a mystery to me.
Bill Konopnicki will run for a fourth term in his state legislative seat. By implication, he won't be running for Congress in CD 1.
Bill's ability to self-finance (he made a pile off fast food) and his strong political base in CD 1 would have been great assets to the troubled effort to hold on to the district of indicted GOP Rep. Dick Renzi for Republicans.
Looks like Bill has allowed prudence to overcome ambition and decided that it's just not the GOP's year. Good call, Bill.
Most of the GOP leadership in the state legislature think that the Attorney General and any County Attorney should get a veto over state funding for any police force in the state who fails to adequately serve the political agenda of the anti-immigrant crusaders of the GOP.
Sponsors of HCR 2039, seek to deputize every state, county, city, and town employee to enforce federal immigration laws. The great kicker in the scheme is to enable any County Attorney or the Arizona Attorney General to impound the state funding of any police agency in Arizona (i.e., not limited to those in their own jurisdictions, which encourages playing politics with the safety of people who aren't their constituents and thus can't retaliate at the ballot box) if he or she, at their sole discretion, determines that the agency has adopted any policy that prevents, or even limits, personnel from determining or reporting immigration status to ICE.
That means that Maricopa County Attorney, serial grandstander, and wanna-be governor Andrew Thomas could effectively cripple any police agency in the state if he believes they are in any way limiting identifying or reporting undocumented immigrants. And there is no appeal process and no due process.
Now, far be it from me to tell anyone's racist granny how to hate on the brown folks, but I know a badly drafted law when I see it. Giving any County Attorney veto power over state funding off any police agency, with no appeal, no recourse, no time limit, and no check on their discretion beyond some vague statutory language is just begging for trouble.
I can only conclude that in their zeal to take yet another whack at undocumented persons, the GOP leadership has abandoned all proportion or caution. And they are playing their polemic wack-a-Mexican game with the funding and operations of our local police forces.
Whatever happened to Republicans being in favor of law and order?