With his first piece of legislation, U.S. Rep. Juan Ciscomani is seeking to relieve a major issue within the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs – the unprecedented backlog of cases pending with the Board of Veterans’ Appeals.
“We have a responsibility to look after our veterans, especially those who have sacrificed so much for our country,” said Ciscomani about H.R. 1378 which he is co-sponsoring with Rep. Morgan McGarvey (D-KY3). “No veteran should be forced to wait for vitally important disability payments.”
In February, the VA reported more than 200,000 undecided disability benefits claim cases, with the average appeal taking 440 days for a decision.
H.R. 1378, otherwise known as the Veterans’ Appeals Backlog Improvement Act, is intended to help the VA respond to a well-publicized backlog that worsened with the passage in 2022 of the Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act which expanded eligibility for various illnesses and diseases attributable to toxic exposure during military service.
The VA has dealt with a claims backlog for many years, but the new claims and related appeals have overwhelmed the agency. Secretary of Veterans Affairs Denis Richard McDonough responded to the PACT Act by hiring hundreds of employees to process the claims.
Yet the VA continues to have a difficult time retaining personnel, particularly lawyers who are vital to the appeals process.
H.R. 1378 will require Secretary McDonough to establish a nine-year pilot competitive honors program through which the Department of Veterans Affairs will recruit law school students, recent law school graduates, and entry level attorneys for employment with the VA.
And each newly hired individual in the pilot program who agrees to remain in the service of the Department for at least three years will qualify for student loan repayment benefits under federal law, according to H.R. 1378.
The legislation also calls for the new hires to be provided a professional mentor within Veterans Affairs no later than 90 days after entering the program.
Ciscomani and McGarvey serve together on the U.S. House Veterans Affairs Committee and the subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs. Their legislation is supported by several groups, including the Disabled American Veterans and the Vietnam Veterans of America.
“DAV has long called on Congress and the Department of Veterans Affairs to support significant and meaningful reforms aimed at addressing the growing backlog of VA claims and appeal processing,” said DAV National Service Director Jim Maszalek. “DAV is proud to support this legislation and applauds Reps. Ciscomani and McGarvey for their bipartisan leadership on this important issue.”
H.R. 1378 further seeks to create a pilot internship program to give high-achieving law students an opportunity to gain experience with the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. Those who successfully complete the internship program would be given priority consideration if they choose to apply for the pilot honors program.
“These programs will enlist our brightest legal minds to assist the Board of Veterans’ Appeals with overcoming this unacceptable backlog,” Ciscomani said upon introduction of the legislation. “It will also offer aspiring public servants an invaluable opportunity to serve their country.”
McDonough will be required to provide periodic reports to Congress about the progress and feasibility of the pilot program. The reports must include findings on the advisability of establishing a permanent competitive honors program and other recommendations to improve recruitment and retention of legal staff at the VA.
In a related manner, H.R. 1378 calls on the Secretary to submit a report to the Congressional committees about efforts to improve access to hearings held before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals held by picture and voice transmission.
Such report should include recommendations for the establishment of pilot programs to assess the feasibility and advisability of using other methods that could improve veteran access to Board of Veterans’ Appeals hearings, according to the legislation.
Today, I'm introducing my first bill. A bipartisan effort to help:
🇺🇸 Recruit qualified staff at the VA 🇺🇸 Reduce long wait times for appeals 🇺🇸 Eliminate VA backlog
No veteran should have to wait years to hear back from the VA. It’s time to serve those who served our country. pic.twitter.com/CRPZfv8ZmF
At a time when one-fourth of all educator positions are vacant statewide, one Arizona school board has voted to reduce the number of university students pursuing education degrees who can do their on-site training in their district.
Washington Elementary School District serves a diverse population of K-8 students in north central Phoenix and east Glendale. It is the largest elementary school district in Arizona with 32 in-class schools and one online school, and has a highly promoted districtwide LGTBQ-acceptance policy.
For more than a decade, several degree students from Arizona Christian University (ACU) have done their student teaching and other practical coursework at one of WESD’s campuses. But in recent weeks, Tamillia Valenzuela has twice urged her fellow four WESD board members to end the district’s arrangement with ACU and another area university.
During a Feb. 23 board meeting, Valenzuela expressed concern that ACU’s mission prioritizes the teachings of Jesus Christ, values which she does not believe are “aligned with” WESD’s priorities. She said she was “really disheartened” to see district staff was asking to renew its long-running arrangement with ACU.
Valenzuela, who describes herself on the WESD website as a bilingual, disabled, neurodivergent Queer Black Latina, cited no documented examples of how any WESD student, parent, or teacher has been negatively impacted over the last decade by the personal Christian values of any ACU student teacher.
However, the board voted 5 to 0 to end its arrangement with ACU at the completion of this school year. About 16 ACU students are currently involved with WESD.
Although several of the board members expressed concern with what they see as ACU’s rigid anti-LGBTQ philosophy, it was Valenzuela’s comments that were interpreted by many parents as pushing “no Christians welcomed” agenda for WESD.
Two WESD parents spoke to AZ Free News on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation against their children; both provided documentation of having students currently enrolled in the district.
“Clearly Ms. Valenzuela believes having Christians involved at Washington Elementary’s schools is unacceptable, whether those people are from Arizona Christian University or simply Christians in general,” one parent said. “Ms. Valenzuela actually said she has personal concerns with feeling ‘safe’ within WESD due to the presence of devout believers in Jesus Christ. What’s next? A religious litmus test for public school employees and teachers?”
The other parent found Valenzuela’s comments about values to be highly hypocritical.
“Tamillia wants to deny student teaching opportunities to ACU students because of her personal dislike of the university’s religious tenets,” the parent noted. “She cannot point us to one incident in all of these years in which any university student shirked their duties toward any WESD student. Yet Tamillia openly wants to discriminate against Christians. Really, who has the values problem?”
At a Jan. 12 board meeting, Valenzuela led a similar attack on the District’s practice of having students from the Grand Canyon University (GCU) social work program serve as interns at various WESD campuses. GCU, based in Phoenix, is one of the largest private Christian universities in the world.
Valenzuela alleged that GCU as an institution has acted in a harmful manner to a low-income community, and thus is not a good philosophical fit for WESD to partner with on social work and mental health. She also expressed concern with having Christian organizations affiliated with the district.
“I am wondering if there’s other options available, one so we are not actively engaging with an institution that’s causing harm and also so we can have options that are not based on a certain faith,” she said.
Lisa Mora, WESD’s assistant superintendent, pointed out there are a limited number of accredited social work university programs for WESD to work with. Many of them are offered through private colleges, and if district officials wish to continue prioritizing social and emotional services for students, “these universities have the ability to work with us directly.”
Valenzuela was the only “no” vote on renewing the relationship with GCU.
Terri Jo Neff is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or send her news tips here.
Maricopa County officials have been working for several weeks on replacing County Manager Joy Rich, who is retiring in early April. Now, the county’s top IT employee is also leaving.
Chief Information Officer (CIO) Ed Winfield is retiring later this week as head of Maricopa County’s Office of Enterprise Technology where he is responsible for all aspects of information technology strategy, operations, service, and security.
For now, Winfield’s duties will be handled by Lester Godsey, the county’s Chief Information Security Officer or CISO. Godsey has been responsible for all cybersecurity and data privacy efforts for Maricopa County.
In turn, Godsey will temporarily turn over his CISO duties to Assistant CISO Seema Patel, who is the county’s director of Information Security Assurance.
How long Godsey and Patel hold those interim positions depends on the speed in which the Board of Supervisors replace Rich. The decision has been made to allow the new manager to hire the new CIO, according to a county spokesperson.
Rich, who as Maricopa County’s chief administrator has been responsible since 2016 for roughly 13,000 employees across 40 departments, announced her impending retirement back in January.
Applications for her position were not due until Feb. 13, leading to the possibility an interim manager could be named if a new manager is not in place by Rich’s last day of April 7.
Terri Jo Neff is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or send her news tips here.
It was a hearing two years in the making, but for government officials, business leaders, and nonprofit operators in Yuma County the sentiment toward the recent field hearing conducted by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee was better late than never.
On Feb. 24, Committee Chairman Jim Jordan led a 14-member delegation to Yuma to hear testimony about how the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has responded to the southwest border crisis that began two years ago when President Joe Biden took office.
Yesterday we heard from farmers, hospital workers, sheriffs, food bank volunteers, border patrol agents, and local officials.
Every single one told us they’ve never seen a border crisis this bad.
And no one thinks it’s going to get better with Joe Biden in charge.
The delegation came on the heels of a border visit earlier this month by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and three freshman representatives who were hosted by Rep. Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ6) in Cochise County, in the southeast corner of the state.
The Yuma trip, however, focused on evidence of how the federal response to the ongoing border crisis in Arizona’s southwest corner has created economic challenges and public health threats.
It also led a recently retired high ranking U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) official to freely speak out on the crisis while others addressed the hard dollar costs of providing free foodstuff and medical care to tens of thousands of migrants.
Dr. Robert Trenschel, president and CEO of Yuma Regional Medical Center, described the $26 million price tag for uncompensated health care provided in 2022 to thousands of illegal immigrants who have besieged Yuma County.
“Migrant patients are receiving free care,” Trenschel noted. “We cannot provide completely free care to the residents of our community so the situation is not fair and is understandably concerning to them.”
Trenschel explained that some migrants have required intensive treatment such as dialysis and heart surgery. He added that discharging migrants after treatment is further complicated by the fact they don’t have access to the necessary post-release equipment and follow-up.
“And when babies are born, they may have to stay in the intensive care unit for a month because of the complications of their situation,” Trenschel said, adding many of the mothers had not had adequate prenatal care.
Illegal immigration affects:
-Schools -Healthcare systems -Infrastructure -Jobs -Inflation -Rents -Crime -Government resources
All of the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee skipped the trip to Yuma, calling it a “stunt hearing.” The lack of bipartisan interest was noted by former USBP Yuma Sector Chief Chris Clem, who was the top USBP official in the area from December 2020 to December 2022 until he retired.
“I think that it should’ve been a bipartisan hearing down here because in order to solve a border security and immigration crisis, we need to involve the community, the experts, the business community,” Clem said of Thursday’s hearing. “That takes everybody and so that means everybody that is represented and their representatives need to be here.”
Clem added that because immigration is a socioeconomic issue, “it requires all sides of the aisle to address.”
The threat to Yuma County’s agriculture powered economy was also addressed by an unexpected voice – Yuma County Sheriff Leon Wilmot.
Wilmot spoke of how USBP apprehensions in his border county went from about 40 a day prior to President Joe Biden’s inauguration in January 2021 to more than 1,000 on some days last year. He also shed a light on the economic and public health issues associated with the border crisis.
According to Wilmot, Yuma County supplies 90 percent of the leafy greens consumed in the U.S. during the winter. But those fields as well as the water needed to support agriculture in the area is being increasingly endangered from “tons of trash, pharmaceuticals, and biological waste” associated with border crossers along the Colorado River.
#WATCH: Yuma County Sheriff Leon Wilmot describes the detrimental impact that illegal immigration has on the safety of local communities. pic.twitter.com/EzHp4vGy9E
The City of Flagstaff can be forced to pay the State of Arizona more than $1.1 million for enacting a minimum wage that is significantly higher than the state wage, according to an Arizona Court of Appeals opinion released Tuesday.
But whether the State gets to keep the money will be determined once a Maricopa County judge conducts a trial on the matter.
Back in 2006, Arizona voters approved Proposition 202 which allows cities and towns to set their local minimum wage, as long as it is not below the state level. Flagstaff did just that in 2016 with the passage of a local voter initiative.
The Arizona Legislature passed a new law in 2019 which allows the State to collect yearly assessments from any municipality with a minimum wage that exceeds the State’s. The assessment entails a detailed process involving state agencies estimating their costs “attributable” to the higher minimum wage.
Each assessment must be approved annually by another act of the legislature, after which the Arizona Department of Administration (ADOA) is required to issue an assessment to the municipality by July 31.
Any impacted municipality then has until the end of the calendar year to remit payment or the Arizona Treasurer must withhold the amount with applicable interest from the municipality’s share of tax revenues.
In the Flagstaff case, the state agencies were asked by the Legislature in 2019 to calculate their “projected costs attributable to Flagstaff’s higher minimum wage” in their 2021 budget estimates. That amount was calculated at $1,110,992, based on Flagstaff’s $15 per hour minimum wage effective Jan.1, 2021.
The Arizona hourly minimum at the time was only $12.15.
The $1.1 million Flagstaff assessment was approved by the Legislature via Senate Bill 1827 on June 30, 2021 and signed the same day by then-Gov. Doug Ducey. ADOA then advised city officials the assessment would be formally issued 90 days later, well after the July 31 deadline.
In the meantime, city officials filed a lawsuit, challenging the 2019 statute as well as the 2021 Senate Bill, arguing both were unconstitutional under the Voter Protection Act (VPA). The effective date of the assessment also plays a big role in the lawsuit.
Without opining on Flagstaff’s constitutional arguments, a Maricopa County trial judge quickly issued a preliminary injunction to prevent the State from enforcing the assessment while the lawsuit is being litigated.
The judge primarily relied on the belief at the time that the June 2021 assessment did not take effect the day it was signed into law, thus making ADOA’s plan to collect the money 90 days later untimely.
The trial judge also briefly noted he was granting the preliminary injunction “out of an abundance of caution” as Flagstaff officials had argued about the “possibility of irreparable harm” with funding critical services if forced to pay the $1.1 million.
The Arizona Attorney General’s Office appealed the preliminary injunction order, arguing on behalf of ADOA and Treasurer Kimberly Yee that the Maricopa County judge made multiple errors to support issuing it. And in a Feb. 21 opinion, the Court of Appeals agreed.
The opinion authored by Acting Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe noted the trial court erred in considering Flagstaff’s irreparable harm argument under the set of facts as they are in the case. Howe added that the city had sufficient funds to cover the assessment, and could have gotten the fund back if the State lost the lawsuit.
As a result, Howe was joined by Judge D. Steven Williams and Vice Chief Judge David B. Gass in overturning the preliminary injunction and sending the case back to the Maricopa County Superior Court “for a trial on the merits.”
The opinion also strongly suggests the trial judge consider a 2022 ruling by the Arizona Supreme Court (Ariz. Free Enter. Club v. Hobbs) in which the justices clarified that revenue laws proving “for the support and maintenance” of “existing state departments or state institutions” are valid upon enactment instead of taking effect at a later date.
If applied to SB1827, that would have allowed ADOA to issue the assessment to Flagstaff in plenty of time to meet the July 31 deadline.
The Court of Appeals also unanimously declined a request from the parties for the judges to weigh in on some other key legal issues with the case, including whether the 2019 statute allowing for assessments of costs to cities like Flagstaff “impliedly amend the VPA, violating Arizona’s constitution.”
Howe wrote that the court of appeals “sits as a court of review, not of first view,” and would not decide the merits of the case without the benefit of having a fully developed record from the trial court.
“While the parties are understandably eager to resolve this case as quickly as possible, quickness must not eclipse thoroughness,” Howe wrote. “We respect the role of the trial court and trust in its competence to resolve all legal and factual matters before it in the first instance.”
The opinion does not take effect for at least 30 days, giving both sides time to petition for review by the Arizona Supreme Court.
As of Jan. 1, 2023, Flagstaff’s minimum is to $16.80 per hour ($14.80 tipped) while the state minimum rose to $13.85.
Terri Jo Neff is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or send her news tips here.
