Mesa Public Schools (MPS) won’t explain where over $32.3 million of their federal emergency funds slated for COVID-related expenditures went. The lack of transparency calls into question the amount of funds funneled into undisclosed areas potentially unrelated to education while teachers struggle for increased salaries and school supply funding.
AZ Free News inquired with MPS about their COVID-19 expenditures after readers requested we look into reports that teachers were asking parents to donate basic supplies like paper because they were running out — and apparently their district wouldn’t cover it. In its annual financial report submitted last October, MPS reported nearly $40 million remaining in their maintenance and operation funds
That led AZ Free News to look into MPS expenditures. The millions we inquired about came from their latest public Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) report. Specifically, we inquired about what was behind the repeated listings of “indirect costs,” “other,” and “etc” expenditures that MPS allocated millions of dollars toward. AZ Free News focused on these expenditures:
Page 8: the “other (includes indirect costs)” totaling over $16 million
Page 9: the “etc” expenditures under PPE totaling nearly $1.7 million
Page 9: the “other” and “indirect costs” together totaling over $554,000
Page 10: the “COVID relief positions” totaling over $122,000
Page 10: the “indirect costs” totaling nearly $4.3 million
Page 12: the “indirect costs” totaling over $9.6 million
With each public records request, MPS officials would refer us back to the public ESSER report. After several follow-ups, MPS General Counsel Kacey King informed AZ Free News that MPS could not fulfill the request further because explanation of those additional expenditures in full would require MPS to “create records.” Under Arizona law, government entities aren’t required to create records that they don’t have.
In all, Arizona has received over $4 billion in ESSER funding. MPS received some of the largest bulk of that funding, coming in second for most ESSER funds received: around $229.2 million, coming in second only to Tucson Unified School District (TUSD).
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Earlier this month, Brophy College Preparatory School engaged in a 10-day-long social justice campaign for its annual Summit on Human Dignity. Although the 40 Days for Life campaign began March 2 and will last until April 10 this year, the school didn’t include pro-life or abortion conversations in any of its workshops that day or in any other part of the summit. The school also didn’t engage in other prevailing social issues at conflict with the Bible, such as homosexuality, transgenderism, premarital sex, divorce, COVID-19 vaccination, women in church leadership, and parental rights. The summit also occurred during Lent, a religious observance for some denominations who claim Christianity to commemorate Jesus Christ’s 40 days of temptation by Satan in the desert following his baptism. Nowhere on the summit webpage did the school mention the observance.
Laced throughout these tracks was the prevailing issue of race and alleged racism, and each track included keynote speakers not directly involved in the issue at hand but with plenty of commentary to offer — mainstream media reporters, activists, and academics — with the exception of those presenting in the Indigenous Rights track.
The promotional video for the summit mocked the city’s Civil War-era founders in a revisionist historical skit, stuffing all of the summit’s topics into 10 minutes of footage: systemic racism, Native American rights, water conservation, public education, and illegal immigration. Despite characterizing one of the founders, ex-Confederate soldier-turned-Army dispatch rider Jack Swilling, as dismissive of Native Americans, the skit didn’t mention Swilling caring for two Apache children as his own. The photograph the school used to identify Swilling was a doctored version of an original depicting Swilling with an Apache Indian boy identified by historians as his adopted son, Guillermo “Gavílan” Swilling — though it’s disputed if he and the other child, a girl, were ever formally adopted due to laws at the time on adoption of Native American children. The version used by Brophy was one that erased the boy from the photograph entirely, created 15 years later.
The two students in the skit characterized the city as “completely unsustainable and deeply problematic on a number of ethical levels.”
The four questions the summit proposed were urges to the participants to focus on the social justice issues presented in each track.
On one day committed to workshops, the school offered 29 different lectures or presentations, out of which only four weren’t apparently centered on social justice. The remainder of the workshops focused on the rights, issues, or controversies with: Native Americans, policing, environmentalism, homelessness, illegal immigrants, Black Lives Matter (BLM), prisons, and race.
One workshop focused on God specifically: “Heaven on Earth: Strengthening Our Relationship with God.” However, another focused on affirming the validity of other world religions: “An Interfaith Look at Phoenix,” by the Brophy Interfaith Coalition.
A controversial bill to offer up to $150 million in tax credits to filmmakers, SB1708, passed the House Appropriations Committee on a divided vote: 8-5.
The bill reads like a promotional deal for a store: if a company spends up to $10 million, then they get 15 percent in tax credits. If they spend between $10 and $35 million, then they get $17.5 percent. And if they spend over $35 million, then they get 20 percent. Companies could get more: an additional 2.5 percent for total production labor costs associated with Arizonan employees, an additional 2.5 percent of total qualified production costs associated with filming at a qualified production facility in Arizona or primarily on location, and an additional 2.5 percent of total qualified production costs if they filmed in association with a long-term tenant of a qualified production facility.
Arizona Free Enterprise Club Vice President Aimee Yentes told the committee that the $150 million refundable tax credit was not only unwise but likely unconstitutional, directing the committee members to review the Goldwater Institute’s analysis of the bill’s potential gift clause violations. She added that this type of legislation only causes a bidding war between states that ultimately cause its residents to lose out, citing similar legislation adopted in other states and their current struggles. As for the argument that the tax credit would result in more jobs for locals, Yentes asserted that theory fails to prove itself in practice.
“It’s a loser that produces few, shallow, low-payment, temporary jobs,” said Yentes.
Michael Scott, CEO of self-described “faith-based” film company Pure Flix responsible for movies like “Case for Christ” and the “God’s Not Dead” series, said that they spend tens of millions outside of Arizona. Scott promised they would employ many locals if they could bring filmmaking to Arizona.
Rob Gerstner, a longtime cameraman, said that this bill wouldn’t stop film companies from “sub-renting” equipment: local companies lack all the equipment necessary to film a movie, meaning that they would then need to rely on renting equipment from other states to fulfill the film company’s contract. Gerstner said that money would bleed out of Arizona because of logistical problems like that.
State Representative Jake Hoffman (R-Queen Creek) noted that pornography movies don’t qualify for the credit, but asked why works like the controversial Netflix film “Cuties” wouldn’t be scrutinized — something that would oppose certain Arizonan’s values. The bill sponsor, State Senator David Gowan (R-Sierra Vista), said that the bill would inspire the “mass good” and that the bad and good works could compete.
“I don’t know how you control all that aspect, but it certainly allows them to be here and allow them to counter that with our religious movies,” said Gowan. “You can’t control everything that’s out there, but you can certainly control the most evil.”
Hoffman said that political candidates and their campaigns could reap the tax credit reward. Gowan said that those kinds of works would fall under campaign laws, which would. Hoffman said that attorneys informed him of the opposite legal take and advised Gowan to look into that.
State Representative Gail Griffin (R-Hereford) explained that she’s never voted for a refundable tax credit. Hoffman said that he wasn’t confident political campaigns wouldn’t benefit from the bill, and cited concerns that the bill would cause a slippery slope “race to the bottom” for tax credits. State Representative Joanne Osborne (R-Goodyear) cited similar concerns.
“At the end of the day I’m just a small mom and pop business owner; I don’t get a $150 million tax credit,” said Osborne. “This bill does set a precedent, and it’s not one I’m going to support.”
State Representative Lorenzo Sierra (D-Avondale) expressed excitement at the thought of all the film-related programs that may arise from this bill.
Butler argued that this bill was “really scary” from the sheer amount of money being committed from the state legislature, at the potential expense of other investments. She said she wasn’t convinced that the returns would outweigh the funds given, citing that there needed to be more checks and balances like a sunset clause to keep the legislation in check. Yet, Butler voted for the bill.
Chairman Regina Cobb (R-Kingman) said that she felt there were significant advantages and disadvantages presented by the bill, agreeing with Butler that there should be a sunset clause, and voted for the bill.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The Democratic Party’s “go-to lawyer,” Marc Elias, promised he would sue Arizona over its election integrity laws passed recently by the state legislature if Governor Doug Ducey signs them into law. Elias was sued by former President Donald Trump on Thursday for his role in the Russigate hoax.
Elias has an expansive and varied portfolio of nearly 30 years among Democrats and corporate capitalists like the major Big Tech companies Facebook and Google. He played an integral role in Hillary Clinton’s Russiagate hoax. He hired intelligence firm Fusion-GPS for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. Fusion-GPS then obtained the debunked dossier from former British spy Christopher Steele, dubbed the “Steele dossier,” who relied on a Russian analyst living in Virginia, Igor Danchenko, for the majority of its information.
My team has already sued Ohio and Arkansas this week.
For those of you following the new voter suppression law moving through the Arizona legislature today, take a look at #7…👀 https://t.co/QRxRuM7Rli
As AZ Free News reported earlier this month, Elias already submitted a motion to intervene in a case challenging the constitutionality of Arizona’s no-excuse mail-in voting system.
Elias has filed suit in numerous states over their new election integrity laws. He characterized Arizona’s most recent legislation passed, HB2492 requiring proof of citizenship in order to register to vote, as voter suppression and disenfranchisement. The bill mainly impacts those who register using federal forms, which don’t require proof of citizenship.
🚨ALERT: Arizona Legislature passes #HB2492, a bill requiring all voters to prove citizenship. The bill risks disenfranchisement for voters who registered before 2004 or used federal forms as they didn't have to submit proof of citizenship when registering.https://t.co/p70k5ydEX0
Other laws that Elias has watched under threat of lawsuit include: HB2237, HB2238, HB2170, and HB2243, which recently passed their Senate committees, and SB1058, which hasn’t been passed by the Senate yet.
Governor Doug Ducey may soon sign into law a ban on transgender surgeries for minors; the Arizona House passed a Senate bill to bar surgeries for minors to attempt a gender transition on Thursday. The bill, SB1138, passed along party lines.
AZ House just passed #SB1138 protecting children from experimental and irreversible gender related surgeries! the @votewarren sponsored bill heads to Gov’s desk pic.twitter.com/rLm5BYfGuj
Major opponents of the bill among the LGBTQ community include activists from Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a national organization focused on pushing LGBTQ ideologies and activism onto children. One such activist also identified herself as a GLSEN lobbyist and community editor for several years, during which time she testified one of her daughters went through puberty and became withdrawn, depressed, and socially isolated. Young said that she encouraged her daughter to transition genders after no amount of therapy, support groups, or psychiatric medications alleviated her poor mental health. Even so, Young says her daughter doesn’t fully identify as male, but rather “male-leaning” on what they both consider the “spectrum” of gender.
Another activist — ACLU staff attorney Chase Strangio, a transgender man known for her work defending transgender individuals, such as convicted spy Chelsea Manning — promised to mobilize efforts to convince Ducey to veto the legislation.
The legislation almost didn’t make it through initial consideration stages in the Senate. State Senator Tyler Pace (R-Mesa) wouldn’t back the bill at first during the Senate Health and Human Services Committee, arguing that parents should have the right to make medical decisions for their children. Pace later changed his mind, citing current international standards of care from health care experts on transgenderism. At present, the World Professional Association of Transgender Health (WPATH) doesn’t support gender transitioning surgeries for minors.
“There’s a certain threshold of irreversibility that can happen during a gender transition. We acknowledge as a state, and so does other very friendly transgender countries like Finland, like I brought up earlier, as well as the international organizations that say: when you get to this degree of irreversibility, it should not be made as a minor,” said Pace after changing his mind.
Just as with the House, the bill passed along party lines in the Senate.
No gender reassignment surgery under the age of 18 passed the Arizona Senate. On to the house. pic.twitter.com/g7TGnDYjYR
