Arizona Legislature

Support HB2115: No Payouts/Benefits for Public Officials Who Misappropriate Taxpayer Dollars!

Anita Christy

Rep. Warren Petersen has crafted legislation that will have a chilling effect on public officials who illegally waste money and then walk away with lucrative benefits or severence pay.  It’s HB2115 Simple, straightforward, brief.  (This bill is scheduled to be heard Jan. 28 at 9:00 am in the Government and Higher Education Committee.  See ACTION at the end of this article.)

Should a public official who is caught and terminated for fraudulently, lavishly spending taxpayer dollars on meals, travel, hotels, entertaining, etc., go on to receive lucrative payouts, annuities, pensions, and other benefits?  

Rep. Warren Petersen doesn’t think so, and neither do the many other sponsors and co-sponsors  of this excellent bill.  HB2115 spells out that anyone who is found guilty would forfeit any future benefits. While there already are laws on the books against fraud and misappropriation of public funds, these cases don’t always get pursued as the official is fired or even allowed to quit.

HB2115 ensures that these public officials forfeit any future benefits.  States Petersen: “All too often, those who are caught and terminated leave with lavish payouts, annuities, pensions and other benefits.  Termination from a high position in government office should not be like winning the Lotto. Rewarding someone for bad behavior can only encourage more of the same.” See Petersen Seeks to Prevent Lavish Payouts to Errant Public Officials.
Two cases come to mind: 

Read more

HB2115 Passes the Government and Higher Education Committee

Anita Christy

"Everything at the City of Phoenix is geared toward the employees," DiCiccio said.  "The taxpayers come last, always."  See Undisciplined Bureaucracy: Civil Service Job Protections Make Disciplining a Problem Government Employee Complicated, Costly and Time Consuming    

An extremely good bill, HB2115 passed its first Committee hearing on 1/28/2015: 6 in favor, 2 against, 1 absent.  It would have passed 7-2, because Rep. Justin Olson (LD25), who was absent, was one of the bill’s Primary Sponsors.  But it has a long way to go to become law.

Please recall from my original article, Rep. Warren Petersen (LD12) crafted this legislation as a deterrent, making public officials think twice before illegally spending thousands of taxpayer dollars, thinking they can walk away with lucrative taxpayer-paid benefits or severance pay.  After watching the committee hearing, including Phoenix Council member Sal DiCiccio’s comments, it’s clear that government employees enjoy far more "job protections and tolerance for bad behavior" than private sector employees.  

In the case of Stephen Banta, CEO of Valley Metro, following an investigation by The Republic, they reported that Banta was reimbursed with taxpayer funds for flying first-class, buying alcohol, staying in $600/night hotels, and eating in some of the most expensive restaurants in Portland, charging all of it to the taxpayers, while running Valley Metro. This included 44 round-trip airfares between Phoenix and Portland from February 2010 to July 2012 for Banta and his wife.  The Republic also found that Banta was reimbursed for dinners that included guests who said they didn’t attend those dinners.   

In spite of all this, Banta was awarded $265k in an annuity upon termination of employment.  

Democrat Lela Alston (LD24), who voted against the bill, commented:  "Maybe his contract should have read: ‘You can’t take your wife on vacations using public funds.’" Democrat Jonathan Larkin (LD30) agreed.

In another recent case

Read more

House Ed. Committee Poised to Stifle Voice of Voters: SB1313

Anita Christy

The first effort to strip our duly elected Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) of powers was during the Legislature’s last session.  Thankfully, HB2184 was held in the House.  The second whack at our eleted SPI was brought forward this session by Sen. Jeff Dial, via SB1416.  

SB1416 has been held by Speaker of the House David Gowan, until very recently, when he caved under pressure from Governor Ducey.  Gowan is currently running as a "conservative" for U.S. Representative in CD1.  Is "caving under pressure" a trait you seek in a U.S. Congressman?  

SB1416 has now morphed into an even uglier SB1313, championed by Rep. Paul Boyer, known for his disdain for parental authority in matters relating to the education of their children.  See Rep. Paul Boyer Won’t Allow Parental "Opt Out" Bill to be Heard! , Boyer Blocking Parental Choice, Privacy Bills , and Boyer Tries To Dodge Public On SB1313, Education Overhaul  

See below for a Summary of SB1313 by Vicki Alger, Ph.D.

Very simply, THIS BILL MUST BE STOPPED!

The House Education Committee will meet on Wednesday, March 16, at 2:00 PM, to vote on SB1313.  Click HERE for the agenda.  Please call, visit, use the RTS (virtual Request to Speak), email the following Committee members as soon as possible!

Read more

The Schools’ War on Arizona’s Children: Part 2 Online Charter Schools

Anita Christy

Some Arizona parents, disgusted with the diabolical determination of their local schools to bully their children into taking the highly controversial AzMERIT exam, are considering online education for their children.

Think again.  Online charter schools are worse.  The extra harsh treatment is completely legal, based on ARS 15-808(B). The online charters are merely "following orders" as dictated by Arizona’s legislators.  "If a pupil fails to comply with the testing requirements and the school administers the tests pursuant to this subsection to less than ninety-five percent of the pupils in Arizona online instruction, the pupil shall not be allowed to participate in Arizona online instruction."

According to Facebook comments from several parents who refused to allow their children to take AzMERIT, their children were "locked out" of learning.  They couldn’t log on to their computers.  

April 5.  This parent posted:  "Received a call from K12 (Arizona Virtual Academy, where ‘students come first’) at 3:10 pm -she said if we did not call her back before 3 pm today..AND if we did not show up tomorrow at the testing site- they would lock our account. Meaning student could not do his work..meaning they are dropping us from the school. IS THIS legal?"

The parent did not call, nor did she and her 3rd grader make the long drive to the remote testing site.  The trip would have required her to take off work, over a period of 3-4 days, for a few hours each day.  (NOTE:  The "online" school doesn’t administer AzMERIT "online."   One parent stated that she would have to drive 120 miles to the testing site nearest her home.)

April 6.  Parent received the following email: 

Read more

The Schools’ War On Arizona’s Children: Part 1

Anita Christy

Even though Arizona legislators are to blame for causing the ugliness, humiliation, undue stress, and mental anguish experienced by parents and their children who dare to reject AzMERIT, it is the teachers, principals, and administrators who are inflicting the pain.  Unless you have pushed back against this unvalidated, secretive, Common Core-based "high stakes test," you have no idea what it feels like to see the ugly Truth behind the "friendly teacher" mask that pretends that educating your child is the school’s number one priority.  The Truth is that the best interests of your child isn’t in the best interests of the dysfunctional school system.  If your child doesn’t "take the test," the schools are afraid that: 1) They are violating Arizona law; 2) They will lose Title 1 money from the federal government; 3) They will get a poor ranking from the Arizona Education Department;  4) The teacher will get a poor evaluation.  

Your child is merely a pawn being used to serve the bureaucratic nightmare that our state’s education system has become. 

We’ve been reading facebook posts and emails from parents and even some high school students telling us their experiences in dealing with their schools.  The stories you will read below are not unique.  They are legion.  They are representative of how the schools are treating kids whose parents opt them out of insane testing.  

Theoden:  I will not risk open war.

Aragorn:  Open war is upon you, whether you would risk it or not.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

Voices from the School Battlefield:

Read more

Dear Senators: “About your decision to disregard parental authority…..”

Anita Christy

The following email was sent to Arizona’s senators.  It is published with permission of Ms. Lisa A. Hudson (LD23), member of the Mommy Lobby.  NOTE:  The best response to threats to the test resistance movement is to focus your efforts, as Ms. Hudson has done, on policy makers. See These are the Senators Who Sneer at Parental Authority

Dear Senators,

As a follow-up to Ms. Christy’s earlier email attaching a response to baseless threats by the Secretary of Education, John King, I would like to add a few more comments.  First, I’ve attached another link to the press release issued by Senator Tom Reed’s office.  The content of the press release is very important to this discussion and I am confident all of you will take the time to read it.

Reed Stands with Students, Parents

Several other facts should be noted.  First, there was some concern at the Senate Education Committee hearing that the Federal Government would withhold funding if states failed to meet the 95% threshold.  That is simply not true.  Pursuant to ESSA, the decision to render punitive measures for failing to meet the threshold is left entirely to the states.  States decide how to deal with particular schools, including making the decision to do nothing.  Note, also, under NCLB mandates, the Federal Government has NEVER withheld funding from any school.  It is extremely unlikely the state would deviate from that path.  Withholding education funding from Title 1 kids would be political suicide for any official hoping to survive an election cycle.  

Read more

The Economic Impact of the Super Bowl

Anita Christy

If you listen to the Super Bowl Hype-a-Thon, big business interests, and the media, you would believe that everybody in Arizona will receive a huge economic boost from hosting the Super Bowl in 2015.  If Governor Brewer hadn’t vetoed SB1062, the Super Bowl wouldn’t come to Arizona!!!  (The articles on this disaster are easy to google.)

Pearl-clutching gasp!

 

 Well, what about that "economic boost"?  I for one have some questions.  For example, how much has it cost the taxpayers to build the Stadium that meets the requirements of the NFL?  How much will it cost the taxpayers to refurbish it?  How much will the taxpayers pay for additional police and fire protection?  Street maintenance?  Advertising?  

Did you know that SRP wasted $1 million of their customers’ money on a Super Bowl  advertising campaign that did nothing to improve energy efficiency or serve its ratepayers?   Also, SRP isn’t in competition with other utilities and doesn’t even need to self-promote at the Super Bowl.  Stated Diane Brown, executive director of the Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), "When SRP promotes the Super Bowl, the arts or human services, no matter how valiant the program, the correlation to the purpose of providing electricy and water fails to exist and ratepayers are left with a tab they didn’t order." 

What about all those economic benefits?  

According a Sports Illustrated article titled "There is no Blip: Super Bowl could be Super Bust for host cities, study finds":

"A look at six Super Bowls dating to 1979 — three in Miami, two in Tampa, one in Phoenix — found no increase in sales revenue over previous years without the big game, said Philip Porter, author of the study.

"One reason may be that the estimated 140,000 fans who attend Super Bowl events in tourist-oriented Florida, Arizona or California displace the usual visitors from colder regions, he said.

"’There ought to be a spike that sticks up like a sore thumb," said Porter, an economics professor at the University of South Florida at Tampa. "It doesn’t exist. There is no blip. You don’t find anything.’"

"We are being suckered," Porter said. "People who want us to do something for them are selling us snake oil."

That was then.  What about now?  Take a look at this January 2014 article "It’s the Local Economy, Stupid"  

On one side, you have the NFL. Last week, the league, as part of its non-stop hype-a-thon for the First Super Bowl Outdoors In Cold Weather Isn’t Snow Just Romantic?, reported that the New York/New Jersey economy would see a $600 million boost as a result of Super Bowl spending. "Thanks to the Super Bowl, we’re seeing more hotel rooms booked and restaurant tables reserved and even more excitement than usual for this time of year," U.S. Rep Carolyn Maloney told reporters.

On the other, you have the nation’s sports economists, who say the actual number is a fair bit lower. Like, maybe, zero. "There still remains no ex post evidence of an economic impact," says University of South Florida professor Philip Porter, almost audibly sighing over email since, as someone who’s been studying this topic for more than a decade, he gets the same question every year at this time. "Super Bowl attendees simply don’t buy much that the local economy sells."

One of the researchers quoted in the above article was Victor Matheson.  The abstract from his indepth study titled Economics of the Super Bowl states: 

Read more

The Truth about SB1062

Anita Christy

SB1062 was not a "controversial" bill.  Nor did it "affirm the right to discriminate."  It was not "broadly worded."  As for those "unintended negative consequences" that Governor Brewer stated in her veto, those are the consequences of standing up for religious liberty and the freedom to associate.  Are those worth fighting for?   Apparently not.  

What Governor Brewer, many Republican legislators, and candidates for Governor revealed was their total ignorance about the so-called "economic benefits" of bringing the Super Bowl to Arizona, and their spinelessness when faced with a mob.   Some of those candidates for Governor are really ferocious, so they tell me. 

As stated by Ilya Shapiro in the Cato Institute article titled For Marriage Equality, Religious Liberty, and the Freedom of Association:  

"SB 1062 does nothing more than align state law with the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (which passed the House unanimously, the Senate 97-3, and was signed by President Clinton in 1993). That is, no government action can “substantially burden” religious exercise unless the government uses “the least restrictive means” to further a “compelling interest.” This doesn’t mean that people can “do whatever they want” – laws against murder would still trump religious human sacrifice – but it would prevent the government from forcing people to violate their religion if that can at all be avoided. Moreover, there’s no mention of sexual orientation (or any other class or category).

Read more