PHOENIX — After a scathing investigative report by the Arizona Republic, Governor Doug Ducey is working with the Arizona Legislature to strip all licensing and regulatory responsibilities from the Board of Examiners of Nursing Care Institution Administrators and Assisted Living Facility Managers.
The board, which oversees the leadership of nursing care and assisted living facilities, granted a license to an individual convicted of a felony for fraud, failed to investigate complaints in a timely manner, and did not provide accurate information to the public.
Ducey’s call for greater accountability coincides with his veto of Senate Bill 1282, which would have reauthorized the board for eight years, until July 2029.
In a sharply worded veto letter, the Governor asked the Board’s responsibilities be transferred to the Arizona Department of Health Services.
“I look forward to working with the Legislature to transfer all licensing and regulation of nursing care institution administrators and assisted living facility managers to the Arizona Department of Health Services,” the Governor said in the letter. “It’s time for accountability and new leadership to supervise these facilities. Our seniors—these are our grandmothers and grandfathers—deserve nothing less.”
House Bill 2241 requires Arizona students to be taught about the Holocaust and other genocides twice between seventh and twelfth grades. Although the bill passed unanimously in February of this year, at issue is a proposed Senate amendment defining anti-Semitism in accordance with the definition adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).
The sponsor of HB 2241, State Rep. Alma Hernandez, is a self-declared progressive and staunch Zionist. The Mexican-American Jewish Democrat is a refreshing and important voice in Arizona’s pro-Israel community, especially at a time in American politics when the term “progressive” is often associated with with anti-Israel sentiment. In an interview with the Haym Salomon Center, Hernandez expressed her support for the IHRA definition, but not in the context of this bill.
“I have championed the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism in the past and hope to do so in the future with colleagues across the aisle in a separate bill,” said Hernandez, adding, “I worked with Holocaust survivors, families and organizations to create this bill. This is their bill, and I will keep my promise to them and pass their legislation.”
Hernandez is part of a chorus of bill supporters who believe the unanimous passing of the legislation sends an important message to students on the significance of Holocaust education.
Joining that choir is Sheryl Bronkesh, president of the Phoenix Holocaust Association. During our conversation she expressed how critical it is to pass this legislation now, with no amendments.
“We’ve been working on this legislation for three years,” explained Bronkesh. “This past year I lost 10 survivors. I don’t want to see another legislative session end without survivors and their families not witnessing Holocaust education being passed while they are with us.”
Disagreeing with Bronkesh is fellow Phoenix Holocaust Association member Marion Weinzweig. Weinzweig, a Holocaust survivor, believes “we need the IHRA definition in the bill. If we don’t define anti-Semitism – teach students about contemporary anti-Semitism – what stops this bill from being used against Jews and Israel?”
Weinzweig and other supporters of the IHRA amendment fear that without the definition, Holocaust education can be used to foment anti-Semitism.
Sounds absurd to some. But during a period in our history where disdain for Jews is growing, anti-Israel advocates and their anti-Semitic minions in government, culture, and academia intend to use the Holocaust to stir up Jew-hatred.
Holocaust inversion is an actual phenomenon. It’s the portrayal of Jews and Israel as modern-day Nazis. Anti-Semites claim Israel treats the Palestinians as the Nazis treated the Jews during the Holocaust.
This sad reality is one of the driving forces that led Arizona State Sen. Paul Boyer to author and sponsor the IHRA amendment. The Republican lawmaker believes the purpose of Holocaust education is not only to teach the history; it must also help eradicate anti-Semitism in the future.
Boyer notes that over 550 survivors, family members of survivors and concerned citizens emailed the Arizona legislature in support of the IHRA amendment.
“The IHRA definition must be part of any Holocaust education bill if the legislation is to have any teeth,” Boyer explained. “If educating students about the Holocaust is to be successful in preventing future injustices, we have to include safeguards to prevent Holocaust inversion.”
Boyer is not wrong in his concerns about contemporary anti-Semitism. In fact, it exists in the very legislative body in which he serves.
For example, Arizona State Rep. and Minority Whip Athena Salman took to the floor in April 2019 and claimed the Israel military has a history of abducting children.
An anti-Israel, anti-Semitic diatribe such as that of Democratic lawmaker Salman makes one wonder how this type of behavior is being tolerated in our society. Invectives spewed by Congresswomen Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), who receive very limited scrutiny for their rank anti-Semitism, only reaffirm the position of IHRA definition supporters.
All the interested parties, on both sides of the debate, understand the importance of Holocaust education but disagree on how best to implement it. What is not up for debate, however, is that anti-Semitism exists even among publicly elected officials, and that Holocaust inversion is now part of contemporary anti-Semitism. Thwarting the trend necessitates a curriculum that includes a clear definition of anti-Semitism, past and present.
Paul Miller is president and executive director of the news and public policy group Haym Salomon Center. Follow him on Twitter at @pauliespoint.
When Gov. Doug Ducey pledged $25 million last month to deploy the Arizona National Guard to the Mexico border he did so after the Biden Administration ignored pleas from state and local law enforcement officials to address the influx of immigrants and smugglers making it unhindered across the border.
The governor noted the National Guard troops would be on State Active Duty to assist with medical operations in detention centers, help with installation and maintenance of border cameras, monitor and collect data from the cameras, and analyze the situation at the border to identify trends in smuggling corridors.
The deployment was well received by two border sheriffs -Cochise County’s Mark Dannels and Yuma County’s Leon Wilmot- who spent the last three months trying to get federal authorities to come up with a plan for the escalating public safety threat and humanitarian crisis at and well beyond the international border.
However, Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos has insisted his agency does not need National Guard support even though the county shares nearly 130 hundred miles of border with Mexico. The same “no thanks” approach was expressed by Sheriff David Hathaway of Santa Cruz County.
The difference in the positions of the sheriffs falls across political lines – Dannels and Wilmot are registered Republicans, while Hathaway and Nanos are Democrats.
The same political division is reflected in an April 21 letter signed by one county supervisor from each of the border counties in which they chastised Ducey for not asking for their input about the border situation. The signers -all of whom as Democrats- serve as their counties’ representatives on the Arizona Border Counties Coalition.
“We are disappointed that you failed to consult with the various Boards of Supervisors of each border county on this matter,” the Coalition letter states. “If asked, we would have requested assistance for transportation services, specifically buses and drivers, to provide those transportation services that we are now left to arrange on our own.”
The letter was signed by Sharon Bronson, Pima County; Ann English, Cochise County; Bruce Bracker, Santa Cruz County; and Tony Reyes, Yuma County.
Chief of Staff Mark Napier of the Cochise County Sheriff’s Office (CCSO) serves as his county’s point of contact with the Arizona National Guard. Last Thursday more than 30 troops arrived in Cochise County to perform a variety of non-law enforcement duties, including working with an extensive camera system utilized by the Southeastern Arizona Border Region Enforcement (SABRE) team to monitor cross-border traffic.
The troops are also providing support in CCSO’s jail and other clerical activities which allows sheriff’s personnel to deal with “other service demands and address the increase in challenges associated with the border crisis we currently face,” Napier explained.
On Friday, Napier told AZ Free News he and Sheriff Dannels had no advance notice that Supervisor English was signing the letter to Ducey, but they do not see the supervisor’s stance about deployment as being in conflict with CCSO’s position that the border crisis “presents a public safety, national security and human rights issue” which must be addressed in collaboration with federal, state, and local partners.
“The letter expresses some frustration over the lack of engagement between the Governor and Supervisors with respect to the deployment of AZNG personnel,” Napier said. “That is a matter between those Supervisors and the Governor.”
Napier added the Coalition’s letter also states border security is a responsibility of the federal government, “which in fact it is.” And the letter does not deny there is a public safety concern related to the current conditions along the border, he noted.
The Coalition’s letter makes no mention of the frequency or cost of transportation services any of the counties have had to provide or arrange for.
Last week, Governor Doug Ducey signed a bill into law making it a misdemeanor to remove, alter, or deface political signs up to 15 days after a primary or general election. Previously, the law prohibited those actions only up to a week after an election. This would apply to any political signage or materials posted by citizens – not just those put up by candidates.
Nearly all Democrats voted against the bill. All Democrats in both the House and Senate voted no, with the exception of State Senator Sean Bowie (D-Chandler).
The bill was introduced by State Senator Michelle Ugenti-Rita (R-Scottsdale). Ugenti-Rita explained in committee that this statutory change was prompted by discrepancies existing in law, where individuals have the right to leave up political signage for up to 15 days after an election. This law would ensure that this right receives protection in the event of a theft or vandalism.
State Senator Juan Mendez (D-Tempe) asked why Ugenti-Rita didn’t choose to limit the amount of time individuals could keep up political signs instead.
“My constituents hate signs,” explained Mendes. “They hate that they need to keep signs up a day after the election.”
Ugenti-Rita explained that her focus was mainly on making the stipulations in current law consistent. She said that she didn’t have any issue with the amount of days allowed for political signage to remain up. In fact, Ugenti-Rita said she agreed with Mesnard’s constituents that political signs were an “eye-sore” and that people should be managing them responsibly.
During the final vote on the Senate floor, Mendez explained that he voted against this bill because he thought candidates should remove their signs within a week.
“Members, if you’re not able to take down your campaign signs in the already-allotted time, then you shouldn’t be putting up so many campaign signs,” said Mendez. “The public is only doing us a favor by removing your litter if you don’t remove it yourself. And there’s no reason they should be sentenced to jail time for doing us all a favor when you’re not capable of taking down your own signs, so this is just uncalled for.”
State Senator Rosanna Gabaldon (D-Green Valley) originally voted for the bill. After Mendez’s explanation, she changed her vote.
Senate President Karen Fann (R-Prescott) supported the bill. She explained that the district she represents is large, and that a week-long timeline is difficult to adhere to when removing signage.
House Democrats offered similar reasons for opposing the bill during their final vote.
State Representative Athena Salman (D-Tempe) said that citizens shouldn’t be punished for acting on a desire to remove signs after a week. She berated her colleagues to take more responsibility for their signage, and claimed that this legislation only benefitted politicians.
“We believe in personal responsibility, and we think it is the responsibility of candidates and politicians – including the politicians that sit in this body – to remove their signs in a timely manner,” said Salman.
The legislation was signed into law on Monday, along with four other bills.
Corinne Murdock is a contributing reporter for AZ Free News. In her free time, she works on her books and podcasts. Follow her on Twitter, @CorinneMurdock or email tips to corinnejournalist@gmail.com.
A report from NewsGuild, the newspaper union, assessed that The Arizona Republic and 13 other newsrooms had gender and racial pay gaps. Outcry arose after it was claimed by the study that not only were those findings true, but The Arizona Republic had the largest gender and racial pay gaps of all the papers researched.
Women and people of color at @Gannett are underpaid by as much as $27,000, a @NewsGuild pay equity study has found.
Gannett has pledged to diversify its workforce. But you can’t do that without fair pay.
The research summarized that under The Arizona Republic, women made nearly $30,000 less than their male counterparts, whereas people of color earned $25,000 less than white employees.
On Thursday, Gannett issued a response saying that the NewsGuild research was a “misinformation campaign.”
.@Gannett issued a response to @newsguild and their misinformation campaign re: the ‘study’ of 14 out of our 250+ newsrooms. We address the facts that were not disclosed. Gannett is on a journey. We’ve been transparent about our goals. #facts[,]” wrote USA Today Network PR.
.@Gannett issued a response to @newsguild and their misinformation campaign re: the ‘study’ of 14 out of our 250+ newsrooms. We address the facts that were not disclosed. Gannett is on a journey. We’ve been transparent about our goals. #factshttps://t.co/UNnXqqeeAM
Gannett explained that the research conclusions were made through a small sample size, and not the full set of the population. Further, information like job titles wasn’t included in the study.
“The sweeping generalizations used in your document are misleading,” wrote the company. “The fact is that data can be skewed to support any narrative – which is the tactic the Guild is using to share misinformation,” stated Gannett.
Indigenous affairs reporter Shondiin Silverman complained that The Arizona Republic that she should be earning more than $40,000 because of her master’s degree and decades of experience.
“It’s infuriating to see that the newsroom I have dedicated so much time and energy to doesn’t see my work as valuable as the other journalists in the room,” wrote Silversmith. “I have given more than enough to prove my worth. The fact that this newsroom does nothing to respect that is ridiculous.”
Some white reporters who’d previously worked for the paper confirmed what Silverman said.
Previous Arizona Republic reporter Bree Burkitt attested that she was earning $10,000 more than Silverman did to do the same job, despite not having a master’s degree or more years in job experience.
Other journalists with The Arizona Republic testified that the newspaper wasn’t diverse or inclusive.
Investigative reporter and The Arizona Republic Diversity Committee Chair Dianna Náñez said that in just over her dozen years, she’d never seen more inequality for minority reporters than under their paper’s current editor.
“Spent 15 yrs w/@azcentral. I love journalism/truth/my communities.Worked for 4 exec editors & w/all @gannett equity/inclusion efforts to make a diff[erence]. Believe me: Under current top editor, I saw [Silversmith], too many POC, women, LGBTQ journos devalued/discriminated against,” wrote Náñez.
In mid-April, The Arizona Republic Executive Editor Greg Burton issued a report stating that the paper is nearing its goal of matching community diversity. Burton described how over 75 percent of new hires were journalists of color, a great majority of which were women.
This month, Burton reported that The Arizona Republic would have 37 percent journalists of color. In 2016, that number was 20 percent. Additionally, 39 percent of managers are people of color – a nearly ten percent increase from last August.
“Our goal is to match a community that’s 44 percent people of color. We’re not there yet, but we’re making progress, and doing so while hiring the most skilled and promising journalists on the job market,” wrote Burton.
This mirrors a similar initiative announced by Gannett last year when it issued its “2020 Inclusion Report.” The company pledged to match the diversity of each paper’s community by 2025.
Per a 2019 analysis, circulation numbers for The Arizona Republic dropped below 100,000. The research noted that the paper had declined over 30 percent since 2017.
The Arizona population totals around 7.3 million people.
Corinne Murdock is a contributing reporter for AZ Free News. In her free time, she works on her books and podcasts. Follow her on Twitter, @CorinneMurdock or email tips to corinnejournalist@gmail.com.
