A citizen-safety bill has cleared its first chamber of the Arizona Legislature.
On Monday, the Arizona House of Representatives approved HB 2684, which “prohibits pedestrians from congregating or soliciting in dangerous areas such as painted or raised medians, highway entrance and exit ramps, and other locations without safe pedestrian access.”
In a statement that accompanied the announcement of the bill’s passage, State Representative Joseph Chaplik, the sponsor of the legislation, said, “Arizona ranks among the highest in the nation for pedestrian fatalities, and too often, people are standing or sitting in traffic medians, freeway ramps, and other places where no pedestrian should ever be. This law will prevent senseless tragedies by ensuring that pedestrians stay out of harm’s way, while also protecting drivers from the devastation of hitting someone in traffic. Public safety is not partisan – it’s common sense.”
According to the release from the Arizona House of Representatives, the bill stipulates that “law enforcement officers will issue a warning for a first violation, a civil traffic citation for a second offense, and a class 1 misdemeanor for repeat violations.”
Chaplik added, “With the passage of this bill, House Republicans continue delivering on our promise to make Arizona a safer place. The governor vetoed this bill last year, but we’ve addressed her concerns by adjusting penalties while keeping the focus where it belons – on safety. I hope she reconsiders and signs it into law this time.”
On the Arizona Legislature’s Request to Speak system, representatives from Rural Arizona Action, American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, AZ National Organization for Women (NOW), AZ Attorneys for Criminal Justice, and Arizona Coalition for Working Families, signed in to oppose the proposal from the House Republican.
Earlier this month, HB 2684 was approved by the House Committee on Regulatory Oversight with a 3-2 vote. All three Republicans voted in favor of the bill, while both Democrats joined together in opposition.
HB 2684 will now head over to the Arizona Senate for consideration.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
A Republican legislator is planning to hear from his constituents about a topic of interest in northern Arizona.
Late last week, State Senator Mark Finchem announced that he would be “hosting a forum in Yavapai County this month to discuss problems posed by vacation rentals in Arizona.” He called on “all concerned citizens to attend.”
In a statement for the press release, Finchem said, “This forum will offer a unique opportunity to hear about the problems associated with the explosion of vacation rentals that are replacing single-family homes at an alarming pace. The adverse economic impact on communities across Arizona is sobering. Mayors from Page to Oro Valley and from Sedona to Prescott are facing mounting pressure from constituents to do something about what is happening in their neighborhoods.”
Senator Finchem reported that there would be around ten mayors from municipalities across the state in attendance at this forum, and that there would be a question-and-answer time at this event.
The ‘Mayors Forum for the People’ will be held on Thursday, February 20, from 2-4pm, at Embry-Riddle University in Prescott. Reservations can be made here.
The Republican lawmaker is serving his first term in the northern Arizona district after capturing the Republican primary last summer and sailing to victory in November’s General Election. Finchem is the Chairman of the Senate Federal Relations Committee, and a member of both the Judiciary and the Natural Resources, Energy & Water Committees.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
The former recorder for Maricopa County, Stephen Richer, is again headlining a “Principles First” summit this weekend.
Principles First, the nonprofit behind the annual D.C.-based summit, proposes a medley of libertarian and progressive values as the true basis of conservatism.
In his panel, Richer will host a “keynote conversation” with former Congressman Adam Kinzinger on the last day of the conference. Kinzinger now works as a commentator for CNN.
Richer also participated in panels during last year’s Principles First summit, themed around defending elections. Richer’s panel focused on improving voter sentiments concerning election integrity.
“We can’t cede the territory [in politics]. We can’t just have it be people who don’t believe in democracy and Democrats, because that’s not a healthy system,” said Richer.
Principles First advocated for the election of Democratic candidate Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential race.
Like others frequently involved with Principles First, Richer voted for Harris last year.
Principles First launched in 2019 as an alternative to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), founded by corporate lawyer Heath Mayo. Mayo voted for former President Joe Biden in 2020 and independent candidate Evan McMullin in 2016. Mayo planned on voting for Biden again prior to the former president dropping out of the race last year.
“Donald Trump represents an existential threat not just to the Republican Party, but to the constitutional principles that shape our country,” said Mayo in a Washington Examiner interview last June. “So, I personally would be voting for Biden.”
Other headliners for the summit this year can be classified as Democrats, centrist or left-leaning Republicans, or Republicans-turned-Democrats: entrepreneur Mark Cuban, Colorado Governor Jared Polis, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, former Congresswoman Barbara Comstock, lawyer John Conway, former Fifth Circuit Judge J. Michael Luttig, former Lieutenant Governor of Georgia Geoff Duncan, former Lieutenant Governor of Maryland Michael Steele, former Defense Press Secretary Alyssa Farah, chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov, former congressman and former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson, former United Nations ambassador and National Security advisor John Bolton, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, political commentator and The Bulwark publisher Sarah Longwell, author and political candidate Harry Dunn, political commentator and former consultant Tim Miller, political analyst Michael Fanone, and journalist Steve Hayes.
Participant organizations include Unite America, The Bulwark, The Dispatch, Protect Democracy, Afghan American Veterans Alliance, American Values Coalition, Grumpy Combat Veteran, Veterans for All Voters, ESC, Country First, Leaving MAGA, Nate Gowdy Photography, Rank the Vote, Ranked Choice Voting Maryland, UpVote Virginia, The Concord Coalition, Citizens’ Climate Lobby, An Accountable America, Welcome Democracy Institute, Bright America, and Center for Collaborative Democracy Grand Bargain Project.
Past donors to Principles First included Defending Democracy Together, which gave the nonprofit over $600,000 per 2023 tax records.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
The Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board held its regular meeting on February 11th. And it was significant for several reasons.
Most notably, the District’s Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Maintenance & Operations and District Additional Assistance Projections were presented. (You can view the presentation and hear the discussion on the budget projections starting a little after the 1:08 mark of this video.)
From the budget presentation, it’s clear that the SUSD’s financial troubles are largely due to declining enrollment. The average daily membership (ADM), which tracks enrollment, is used to determine state funding, including Proposition 123. Under Dr. Menzel, enrollment has consistently dropped. As of February 2025, enrollment stands at 19,367, which is a decrease of 390 students from last year, which was down 355 from the previous year. Over the past seven years, enrollment has fallen by 13%, from 22,608. Dr. Menzel has been superintendent since July 2020, and despite receiving a bonus every year and a pay raise with a contract extension, he has failed to meet any of the academic performance goals set by the Board.
Could the decline in enrollment be due to the dismal academic performance under Dr. Menzel?
Last year, in SUSD, 8,100 students were not proficient in English-Language Arts (ELA), 9,400 were not proficient in math, and over 12,000 were not proficient in science. Yet over 98% are passed on to the next grade or graduate. Unfortunately, this is not an anomaly, but the continuation of a trend at SUSD.
Across all SUSD 5th graders, there are an average of 300 students who are highly proficient in either ELA, math, or science. That means over 1,100 5th graders are not highly proficient. And 600 of those are not even proficient in either ELA, math, or science, yet they will be passed on to middle school.
At Coronado High School, 74% of the students are not proficient in reading, and 83% are not proficient in math, but 89% will graduate in 4 years. How can that be? Is this what Dr. Menzel means when he says SUSD is providing a future-focused, world-class education? What kind of future is he focused on for those students?
The District’s CFO, Shannon Crosier, did offer a “silver lining” to the enrollment decline, noting that staff reductions could help cover part of the projected budget shortfall—$1.2 million of the anticipated $2.9 to $4.2 million deficit (depending on Proposition 123)—and maintain the ratios as established by the Board. I guess that was the good news. But if enrollment is down, doesn’t that mean lower class sizes and a better teacher-to-student ratio? Why is that a bad thing? Why lay off teachers? Answer, Dr. Menzel doesn’t want to make meaningful cuts to District staff.
Both Ms. Crosier and Dr. Menzel pointed out that 85% of funds are allocated to schools, leaving only 15% for district-level expenses. As a result, the budget proposal includes the elimination of only 12 district-level FTE positions. However, according to them, meaningful budget cuts will also require eliminating 20 FTE school-level positions and 3 assistant principal positions.
When Board Member Carney questioned the impact of these cuts, especially considering the 59 instructional positions cut in the 2024 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, while adding 71 student support positions and 44 support and administration positions, Ms. Crosier promised to investigate the matter further. This trend of reducing instructional staff while maintaining student-teacher ratios amid declining enrollment seems to be continuing.
Member Pittinsky attributed the enrollment decline to changing demographics, a low capture rate (only about 50% of eligible students attend SUSD), and what he called systemic issues. He argued that without addressing these issues, the situation would remain unchanged. He added that without changes in the expense structure, 12 months from now we would be doing this again.
Changing the expense structure is one way to deal with the problem, but it doesn’t tackle the root cause of the declining enrollment.
Citing demographic changes and systemic issues as reasons for enrollment loss seems like a convenient excuse, especially when the key questions remain unanswered: Why are students leaving SUSD? Why is the capture rate so low? Perhaps Pittinsky, who chose Brophy over SUSD for his child, could shed some light on that.
It’s concerning that no one at the meeting seems willing to discuss the root cause of the declining enrollment. Could it be tied to the District’s poor academic performance, combined with the focus on social-emotional learning, gender identity, hiring social workers while laying off teachers, and Dr. Menzel’s broader efforts to disrupt and dismantle SUSD?
Why not address the expense structure right now? Cutting 12 staff positions for next year only represents 3% of the district’s staff, which doesn’t seem like a significant reduction. Why is no one questioning what district staff are doing? For instance, what purpose is served by the 13 FTE in Desegregation? Or the 13 FTE working on State and Federal Titles I, II, and V? How about the 10 working on Student Information? Do we need 7 FTE in the Communications Department and another 7 in Community Education?
Member Pittinsky also asked when the Board would be able to inject their values into the budgeting process. Dr. Menzel’s response, as usual, was long-winded and didn’t fully answer the question. But I’d ask Member Pittinsky: why not act now? You’ve acknowledged the need for an expense structure change. As a Board member, you have the power to ask tough questions about district staff activities and direct Ms. Crosier to prepare a budget based on substantial cuts to district-level staff. Again, do we need 13 FTE in Desegregation? Dr. Menzel claims they leave no stone unturned to tackle the problem, but I remain skeptical.
We should also be mindful of potential cuts to government funding, both state and federal, especially in light of President Trump’s executive orders on education. If these cuts materialize, the impact on the District could be significant.
This was just the first budget meeting, and more details will be presented on February 25th and March 4th. The proposed budget will be presented to the Governing Board on June 10th, with a public hearing and adoption scheduled for June 24th.
The June 10th meeting is a regular meeting, meaning public comments will be allowed with a two-minute time limit. A two-minute time limit will likely also be enforced during the public hearing on June 24th, with the Board voting to adopt the budget immediately after the hearing.
This is all by design. Dr. Menzel put together the budget with little to no input from the Board or the public. Then he presents it when there is very little time to make changes. Scheduling the public hearing just before the Board votes allows Dr. Menzel to say he is following the law, without getting public input in a meaningful way into the budget. He doesn’t care what the public thinks.
That’s why parents and anyone concerned about the direction of SUSD must speak up or ask questions directly to the District staff and Dr. Menzel. Inquire about what each department is doing and then ask yourself—and the Governing Board—whether we can afford to continue funding these activities. Then ask yourself if Dr. Menzel and his team have truly left no stone unturned.
If you care about the education of SUSD students, you need to speak up and let the Governing Board and Dr. Menzel know what your concerns and priorities are. Remember, they work for you!
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
Parents within the Deer Valley Unified School District (DVUSD) raised concerns over compliance with the Trump administration’s directive to end Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI).
Last Friday — Valentine’s Day — the U.S. Department of Education (ED) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) sent a letter to the Arizona Department of Education (AZED), along with the departments of education in the remaining 49 states, ordering an end to DEI in all public schools, from K-12 to higher education. The deadline for compliance is Feb. 28, 2025.
Just 11 days left now. As good as they may sound, MTSS and Portrait of a Graduate are problematic and often incorporate DEI.
The Deer Valley Unified 2024-2025 handbook is not available, so one can only assume that's one of the more public documents that needs necessary changes… https://t.co/Qi63QxU29Wpic.twitter.com/sIhAVk6K4b
Additionally, ED opened an OCR complaint line to report unlawful discrimination within public schools based on its letter. ED characterized DEI as unlawful discrimination.
“Educational institutions have toxically indoctrinated students with the false premise that the United States is built upon ‘systemic and structural racism’ and advanced discriminatory policies and practices. Proponents of these discriminatory practices have attempted to further justify them—particularly during the last four years—under the banner of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (‘DEI’), smuggling racial stereotypes and explicit race-consciousness into everyday training, programming, and discipline,” stated ED. “But under any banner, discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin is, has been, and will continue to be illegal.”
Arizona Women of Action (AWA) expressed concerns over DVUSD’s Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) and Portrait of a Graduate.
“As good as they may sound, MTSS and Portrait of a Graduate are problematic and often incorporate DEI,” stated AWA.
In an X post over the weekend, DVUSD candidate Tiffany Hawkins said she had yet to hear from district leadership about their plan to address the DEI eradication directive. Their next board meeting is next Tuesday.
Deer Valley District has 14 days to comply with removing DEI ordered by US dept of ed. pic.twitter.com/vEV6gtrqFq
MTSS and Portrait of a Graduate are two subcomponents within the DVUSD Strategic Plan for 2023-2028’s “Excellence in Student Learning” component.
The MTSS component relies in part on a “campus equity flowchart,” which is no longer available.
Paradise Valley Unified School District (PVUSD) governing board member Sandra Christensen indicated parental concern over DEI eradication compliance in other districts as well.
“We all do [need to comply],” said Christensen. “Districts need to address this.”
DEI ideology hasn’t been stripped immediately from DVUSD’s website — the ideology remains.
The district’s Gifted Services parent portal page includes a section on “Culturally Fair and Inclusive Practices in Serving Gifted Populations” which illustrates its claims of DEI using the oft-employed “Reality-Equality-Equity-Justice” cartoon depicting fans attempting to watch a sports game from different vantage points over a fence.
“The identification and dismantling of barriers must be included as part of the definition of equity since the road to identification for gifted services contains several barriers for [Culturally, Linguistically, and Economically Diverse,] CLED students,” stated the webpage. “Gifted characteristics manifest themselves differently in CLED students — some may even appear as negative characteristics[….] Various gaps (which include cultural perception, beliefs, opportunity, etc.) of CLED students and teacher perceptions or stereotypes of giftedness.”
The district claimed barriers included the exclusion of CLED parents due to their ignorance of the gifted services program, educators’ inability to recognize gifted characteristics in CLED students, CLED parents’ reticence to access gift services due to an inability to complete referral forms, and inherent bias against CLED students within assessments or use of national norms.
The Gifted Parent Portal also included Social and Emotional Learning resources.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
