A nonprofit program receiving taxpayer funds to house illegal immigrants called police on two congressmen who attempted to visit the facility last week.
A manager with Casa Alitas called the sheriff on Republican Reps. Tom Tiffany (WI) and Doug LaMalfa (CA), both members of the Natural Resources subcommittee, when they attempted to visit a Casa Alitas location housing illegal immigrants: a repurposed Ramada Inn in Tucson. In a video of the interaction, the pair are invited to speak to an unidentified, masked woman referred to as the “manager” of the location; upon hearing them introduce themselves as members of Congress, the woman turned and yelled at her colleague to “call 911.”
Tiffany urged a public congressional hearing on NGO expenditures for illegal immigrant aid.
“These NGOs aiding illegals are receiving federal dollars, and it’s Congress’ duty to provide oversight,” said Tiffany. “This needs investigating ASAP, and Congress must hold public hearings with these groups testifying to give the American people transparency on how their tax dollars are being spent.”
After @JamesOKeefeIII exposed that the Casa Alitas Ramada Hotel in Tucson was housing illegals, I made a stop to see how American taxpayer dollars are being spent.
These NGOs aiding illegals are receiving federal dollars, and it’s Congress’ duty to provided oversight.
Casa Alitas is a program of the Catholic Community Services of Southern Arizona. The program takes in illegal immigrants from ICE and Border Patrol detention, and gives them housing, food, clothing, laundry, toiletries, and travel assistance.
The parent organization spent over $3 million in the 2022 fiscal year to operate Casa Alitas, assisting nearly 47,700 illegal immigrants that year. As of their latest data in 2023, the program has assisted over 180,000 illegal immigrants since launching in 2014.
In December, illegal immigrants overwhelmed Phoenix Sky Harbor airport with transport and travel assistance supplied by Catholic Community Services of Southern Arizona. Multiple individuals reported witnessing the illegal immigrants receiving priority boarding and expedited security checks.
The cost to house and transport illegal immigrants has come at a high cost to taxpayers. In October, AZ Free News reported on the city of Tucson having spent $5 million in under a year to provide housing and busing to illegal immigrants through a reimbursement arrangement with the county and federal government. The city entered into an agreement last April to have Pima County reimburse them for incurred expenses providing services to illegal immigrants.
In a meeting last week, the Tucson City Council agreed to be reimbursed for up to another $6 million under this arrangement through the summer.
Current Casa Alitas program leadership include Diego Peña Lopez, agency director; Susana Selig-Gastelum, associate agency director; Daniel Diochea, operations manager; Kyle Haynes, operations manager; and Caleb Milford, operations manager.
“This a prime example of a critical lack of transparency,” said Backer. “If public dollars are being used to run this facility, it requires oversight by public servants who will be transparent and can be trusted to look out for the taxpayers interests.”
Tiffany visited the Casa Alitas location after O’Keefe Media Group (OMG) went undercover to report the location’s inner workings. One migrant informed an OMG journalist that he witnessed gang members taking advantage of the lax border policy.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Mesa Public Schools (MPS) faces a lawsuit for policies resulting in the secret transitioning of children’s genders and tracking their gender transition journeys while restricting parental knowledge or consent.
The amended lawsuit, filed on Tuesday by America First Legal (AFL) on behalf of MPS Governing Board member Rachel Walden and the mother of one alleged victim, accused MPS of unlawfully hiding policy and evidence of their transitioning of children from parents. Arizona’s Constitution and Parents’ Bill of Rights acknowledge that it is the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children.
The amended complaint contained new information revealing that at least one MPS school maintained a “parent concealment cheat sheet”: a spreadsheet tracking the gender journeys of over a dozen students as well as information on which of their parents were supportive or needed to be kept in the dark.
/1 🚨BREAKING – America First Legal Sues Mesa Public Schools in Amended Lawsuit, Adding Mother Whose Daughter’s Gender Was Transitioned Without Parental Knowledge or Consent, and After Obtaining New Evidence Proving Scale of Deception
MPS policy of transitioning children without parental knowledge or consent, the Transgender Support Plan (TSP), dates back to 2015, according to the lawsuit. The policy asks the children for permission to notify their parents of their gender transition: should the child decline, MPS requires its employees to keep the transition hidden from parents.
MPS has long denied the allegations that TSP occurs without parental notification. Last June, MPS Superintendent Andi Fourlis dismissed the allegations in a public letter.
According to a once-public document students were made to fill out to initiate a TSP, the Support Plan for Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students, students were given the option to deny permission of disclosure of their gender transitions to their parents. MPS removed that support plan from public view following community outcry in 2022. The district then issued an updated version of the support plan with a loophole to parental disclosure: name and gender changes were to be requested through Synergy — the district’s online database — in order for parents to be notified. Should Synergy not be updated, parents would not be notified.
AFL noted that this loophole contradicted Fourlis’ claim, which ultimately resulted in the gender transition of the eighth-grade girl at the heart of AFL’s lawsuit, Megan Doe, to a male by school staff without the knowledge or consent of Doe’s mother, Jane.
“[S]chool employees encouraged Megan to lie to her parents and helped her to do so, which harmed the parent-child relationship and delayed Megan from receiving needed mental health counseling,” stated AFL.
Per the lawsuit, Jane’s attempts to learn of what had happened to her daughter were rebuffed by school staff and leadership in 2022. The principal at her daughter’s school refused to disclose further records or information about the conversations school staff had with her daughter, and refused to comply with Jane’s demand to cease referring to her daughter as a boy and by a boy’s name.
“The principal admitted that school personnel intentionally had not changed Megan’s name in the [Synergy] system to avoid any notification being sent to Jane and that there were no plans to change Megan’s name in the system,” stated the lawsuit. “The principal told Jane that even if Jane had asked to be notified about any name changes, pronoun changes, or other choices related to a transgender identity by her child, it was official MPS policy not to tell parents and that school personnel would not notify Jane about any further developments related to these issues.”
It was only after this ordeal that Jane discovered Megan’s struggles and, reportedly, was able to resolve them through conversations with her mother and a psychotherapist. The lawsuit stated that this maternal intervention resulted in Megan’s issues being “completely resolved” within a month.
“[Megan] is now very comfortable presenting herself as a female and using her given name and is thriving in high school,” stated AFL.
AFL claimed to also have discovered, upon information and belief, that MPS employees regularly ignored the requirement to notify parents after students began transitioning genders in school.
AFL further issued evidence of a school counselor, Emily Wulff at Kino Junior High, instructing school staff in an email last March to not disclose gender transitions to anyone outside those allowed within the support plan. Wulff’s email made no mention of parental notification.
In a follow-up email, Wulff clarified that the purpose of the nondisclosure policy was to “protect outing students who are not ready to come out to peers or family members.” Wulff specified that the support plan was designed to keep gender transitions a secret from certain families.
“The main takeaways would be to make sure when contacting home to use their preferred name home,” wrote Wulff. “For example, if I have a student that goes by Emily and she/her pronouns that I need to call home for, and in their plan it says to use their birth name and biological pronouns home, [be] sure you do not out the student by using their preferred name and pronouns they use at school.”
Last March, Wulff also directed school employees to keep up a spreadsheet tracking the gender transition journeys of 17 students, titled “Pronoun Preference,” with notes declaring whether a student’s parents and family were aware of their transition.
For three students whose parents were documented as “unaware,” Wulff’s spreadsheet directed school employees to hide their preferred names and pronouns. For another seven students whose parents were documented as somewhat aware or partially supportive, the spreadsheet instructed staff to use the students’ birth names and gender to mask the extent of their transition.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes is facing another lawsuit over his Elections Procedures Manual (EPM), the state’s rulebook for administering federal and state elections updated biennially.
On Friday, the Arizona Republican Party (AZGOP), the Republican National Committee (RNC), and Yavapai County GOP sued Fontes over the 2023 EPM. Newly-elected AZGOP Chairwoman Gina Swoboda stated in a press release that Fontes had far surpassed his limited rulemaking authority through the EPM.
“Fontes and his allies are not legislators — they have no right to insert their preferred far-left policies into the guidance for Arizona elections,” said Swoboda. “This is a blatant attempt to rewrite election law and hollow out basic safeguards that are designed to preserve election integrity in our state’s elections.”
State law limits Fontes’ rulemaking authority to supporting existing laws on early and regular voting, and the handling of ballots and other election materials. The GOP groups stated in their lawsuit that these limitations were necessarily “specific and exhaustive” because the EPM carries the force of law upon approval by the governor and attorney general: a violation of any EPM provision is a class two misdemeanor, which carries a maximum four-month jail sentence.
Nine provisions set forth in Fontes’ EPM conflict with state election law, according to the GOP groups. These provisions concern registered voters who are declared noncitizens or have not provided Documentary Proof Of Citizenship (DPOC), signature verification, challenges to early ballots, out-of-state mailed ballots, and out-of-precinct voters.
One contested EPM provision requires county recorders to not cancel the voter registrations of individuals who declared themselves noncitizens on juror questionnaires if they have previously provided DPOC or have been registered to vote since 2004. The GOP groups contend that A.R.S. § 16-165(A)(10) requires county recorders to cancel those types of voter registrations, should the individual in question not respond to a mailed request for DPOC within 35 days.
A second contested EPM provision allows for those who don’t submit DPOC or whose DPOC can’t be verified to be registered as federal-only voters: individuals who may only cast votes for federal offices. The GOP groups contend that A.R.S. § 16-127(1) prohibits those without DPOC from voting in presidential elections.
A third contested EPM provision allows first-time, federal-only voters to provide only an ID and not DPOC in order to vote by mail. The GOP groups contend that A.R.S. § 16-127(2) prohibits anyone who hasn’t provided DPOC from voting by mail.
Fourth and fifth contested EPM provisions declare that county recorders aren’t required to check federal databases for citizenship review purposes. The GOP groups contend that A.R.S. §§ 16-165 and 161-121.01 require county recorders to compare voter registrations to a specific and inclusive list of state and national databases.
A sixth contested EPM provision precludes public review of voter signatures on mail ballots, limiting review to documents pertaining to a candidate, initiative, referendum, recall, new party, or petition. The GOP groups contend that A.R.S. § 16-168(F) allows public review of voter signatures for all election purposes.
A seventh contested EPM provision allows Active Early Voting List (AEVL) voters to make one-time requests for their ballots to be mailed to an address outside the state for certain elections. The GOP groups contend that A.R.S. § 16-544(B) prohibits AEVL voters from using a mailing address outside the state unless they are Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) voters.
An eighth contested EPM provision requires the denial of early ballot challenges received prior to the “return” of an early ballot or after the opening of an early ballot affidavit envelope. The GOP groups contend that A.R.S. § 16-552(D) allows for challenges to be placed before early ballots are placed in the ballot box specifically.
A ninth contested EPM provision allows out-of-precinct voters to cast provisional ballots. The GOP groups contend that A.R.S. § 16-122 prohibits out-of-precinct voters from voting at all.
Their lawsuit also accuses Fontes of ignoring statutory requirements for public and stakeholder review of the EPM, namely by withholding disclosure of “critical portions” of the rulebook until its final release last December.
GOP leadership also objected to Fontes only granting 15 days for initial public comment on the draft EPM from last July to mid-August and then allowed for no public comment period prior to the publishing of the final EPM in December. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires agencies — defined as boards, commissions, departments, officers, or other administrative units — to allow for at least 30 days of public comment. The GOP groups argue that the secretary of state’s office falls under APA’s definition of agency.
Both the AZGOP and RNC raised objections to the brevity of public comment for the draft EPM around the time of its release, which Fontes ignored.
At the end of last month, Arizona’s GOP legislative leadership sued Fontes over the EPM. Their lawsuit contested some of the same provisions as this latest lawsuit from the GOP groups, but also contested other provisions, such as an AEVL provision delaying voter roll cleanup until 2027 and a canvassing provision circumventing court-based relief for when boards of supervisors fail to certify an election.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
In Flagstaff, a citizen requesting one hour of police body camera footage could expect to pay about $80.
Flagstaff Police Department body camera footage will now cost $46 per hour reviewed, along with a $30 charge for digital media storage, after the city council voted to no longer offer the records for free.
The Flagstaff City Council voted on Tuesday to charge for the footage during their regular meeting. The council cited a law from the state legislature enacted last October, which enabled cities to begin charging for police body camera footage. The law set the maximum fee at $46, which the council adopted.
The council noted in its presentation on the proposed fee that the hourly salary costs for legal review of public records requests of footage, in addition to the redactions by records personnel, exceeded the state statute cap of $46.
The city estimated that the labor cost of FPD’s records lead was $37 an hour, while a records supervisor was $42 an hour, and a legal advisor’s labor cost was $118 an hour. Factoring those estimates and excluding use of equipment or digital media costs, the city calculated that the hourly cost to review, redact, and copy the footage was around $160 an hour.
The presentation further suggested that the public mitigate its costs by narrowing public records requests to specific videos within a case, rather than casting a wide net. City staff noted that FPD posts videos of certain critical incidents online at no charge.
“Costs for videos can be managed by making requests for specific videos, such as one where a person was arrested, or ones where a particular people were interviewed as opposed to all videos in each case,” stated the city.
The city’s financial impact description on its final agenda noted that staff spent over 200 hours redacting body camera footage over the course of one year, July 2022 to July 2023: about four hours a week. However, the city’s presentation on the policy said that the 200 hours were spent reviewing body camera footage, not the time it took to redact and download the footage.
The city estimated that redactions took as long as 45 minutes per every hour of video. For downloads, they estimated it takes about 20 minutes for a CD download per hour of video and three minutes for a thumb drive transfer per hour of video.
The 200 hours were responsive to about 136 public records requests. For all that time, the city estimated that it would have collected over $9,200 in revenue under the state statute’s $46 cap.
The legislature previously passed a law enabling the Department of Public Safety (DPS) to charge for body camera footage in 2021. DPS charges about $42 per hour of footage reviewed.
The council passed the policy without any comment.
Additionally, the city updated the language describing the police body camera records from “copies of tapes” to “digital media.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
A vote by the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) earlier this week moved to limit energy companies’ push to meet Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG) goals.
The ACC voted 4-1 on Tuesday to draft rules to repeal existing rules and mandates for renewable energy as well as electric and gas energy efficiency: the Renewable Energy Standard and Tariff (REST) Rules and the Energy Efficiency Standards (EE), also known as the Demand Side Management (DSM). Per the commission, the rules and mandates for REST and EE/DSM resulted in incentives for renewable energy projects and services, since utilities were required to file proposals describing REST compliance.
Commissioner Ana Tovar was the sole “no” vote on the motions. The standards behind EE/DSM expired in 2020, but previous commissions didn’t repeal the rule.
The commission noted in Wednesday and Thursday press releases that the rules, tracing back to 2006 for REST and 2010 for EE/DSM, have cost customers nearly $3.4 billion through corresponding surcharges. REST surcharges have cost ratepayers nearly $2.3 billion, while EE/DSM surcharges cost nearly $1.1 billion.
Commissioner Nick Myers said in Wednesday’s press release that the rules and mandates were unnecessary and would result in a drastic cost increase to consumers.
“I believe it is time for the Commission to consider repealing these rules and mandates that appear to unnecessarily drive-up costs,” said Myers. “Utilities should select the most cost-effective energy mix to provide reliable and affordable service, without being constrained by government-imposed mandates that make it more expensive for their customers.”
In Thursday’s press release, Chairman Jim O’Connor — who filed the motion to repeal REST — said that the commissioners from nearly 20 years ago were “well-intentioned” in their vision for reducing the state’s carbon footprint through the REST rules, but that no cost controls were ever implemented, at the detriment of ratepayers.
“In 2006 when the REST rules supplanted the EPS rule, concerns by the dissenting Commissioner cited the lack of cost control measure that would negatively impact ratepayers, and the then-Chairman Hatch-Miller intended that the Commission review annually whether it was in the best interest of the ratepayers. Those reviews never occurred and costs were never considered,” said O’Connor.
O’Connor further remarked that contracts in pursuit of environmental mandates ultimately burdened the ratepayers.
“We began the steps needed to repeal a rule that has cost ratepayers billions of dollars in out of market priced contracts,” said O’Connor. “Mandates distort market signals and are not protective of ratepayers.”
Commissioner Kevin Thompson — who filed the motion to repeal EE/DSM — stated in the press release that the repeal marked a victory for ratepayers, and the end of “feel-good programs” that lack affordability and reliability.
“Arizona utilities have collected over a billion dollars in ratepayer surcharges for efficiency initiatives that have done little to avoid the need for new generation and have benefitted a select few,” said Thompson. “Energy efficiency programs are routinely pushed by vocal special interest groups where the economic benefits favor a small group of customers, and the large majority of ratepayers foot the bill.”
The entire rulemaking process will take over a year, according to commission staff. The REST and EE/DSM repeal are part of a greater, five-year review of existing ACC rule packages.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
