The Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) has directed the state’s three public university presidents to immediately take the necessary steps to rid the universities of any investments in Russia companies.
The ABOR’s order to the presidents of Arizona State University, Northern Arizona University, and University of Arizona and Northern Arizona University comes after Arizona Treasurer Kimberly Yee recently reminded all state vendors and contractors of their responsibilities in response to current U.S. sanctions against Russia.
The order also requires the director of the board’s retirement plan to exclude Russian assets and investments until further notice.
“The Arizona Board of Regents condemns in the strongest possible terms Vladimir Putin’s illegal invasion of the sovereign nation of Ukraine and apparent targeting of civilian populations, with one million refugees already in its wake,” said ABOR Chairperson Lyndel Manson.
Several educational programs at ASU, NAU, and UA with ties to Russia or Russian universities have been put on hold since the invasion began last month.
“As this humanitarian tragedy and assault on democracy continues to unfold, it is vital we understand the totality of our engagement in Russia so we can take any appropriate and necessary action,” said Regent Larry E. Penley.
An internal conflict appears to be brewing over state legislation which passed through the House and the Senate on March 3 on combined votes of 85 to 0 and was immediately signed into law the same day.
House Bill 2839 was intended to address concerns with statutory deadlines for candidates to qualify to run in Arizona’s 2022 primary elections, the first based on the state’s recently redrawn 30 legislative and 9 congressional districts.
HB2839 was written as an emergency law to provide new rules for this year’s primary election nominating petitions. Passage required a bipartisan, supermajority margin of at least two-thirds of both the 60-member House and 30-member Senate to be become immediately effective once Gov. Doug Ducey affixed his signature.
Yet within 48 hours of the emergency law taking affect, questions began to be asked about one of the four sections of the new law. By Monday morning, the majority of legislators who voted for HB2839 conceded they either misunderstood Section 4 or had not read the bill before casting a vote.
Section 4 contains a new, this-year-only nominating petition requirement which allows candidates for political party precinct committeemen (PCs) to skip signature gathering. But it also gives a political party’s local county committee sole authority to decide which one candidate must be appointed by the county board of supervisors to every PC position for that party.
In Arizona, a PC’s minimum duties under state law involve assisting their political party in voter registration and also providing voter assistance during an election. But a key PC duty involves a vacancy in a county or state office. In most instances, it is a county’s PCs of the party of the prior officeholder who nominate the candidate(s) to fill the vacancy.
The new law also contains other provisions in Section 4 which are confusing, such as providing for only one PC for each precinct, when some precincts currently have several PCs.
Senate President Karen Fann admitted on Sunday that Section 4 resulted in an unintended change in state law. She spent the weekend and Monday working with members to design a plan to repeal Section 4 while also ensuring the thousands of Arizonans interested in serving as a two-year terms as party precinct committeemen will be able to get their names on August’s primary election ballot.
Myriad reasons have been put forth by legislators for why they voted in support of HB2839 without questioning the drastic changes to PCs. Some privately admitted they did not read the bill’s language due to its support by legislative leaders. Others say the text of Section 4 was not capitalized, leading them to believe there was nothing being changed to PC-related laws.
Still others say they read the bill but believed Section 4’s reference to selection of PCs by the local party committee applied only to new precincts recently created under the once-a-decade statewide redistricting process.
New bills were introduced Monday in both chambers – HB2840 and SB1720 – to fully repeal Section 4. However, there are not enough votes yet to pass either bill by the necessary supermajority margin to take affect immediately.
In addition, many lawmakers say they will not vote to repeal Section 4 unless there is new legislation to properly address the PC nomination petition deadline.
“I’ve been pushing for a full repeal of this language all weekend,” Rep. Jake Hoffman said Monday. “The section dealing with PC elections that was snuck into the emergency bill last week will be removed.”
Hoffman (R-LD12) also called on Monday for a thorough review of how the PC language was added to the bill without a full disclosure to legislators.
“In my meeting with leadership today I also made it exceedingly clear that there must be accountability for this abhorrent breach of trust and legislative process,” he said.
Both chambers of the Arizona Legislature have been busy this week considering bills which originated in the other chamber, and one that is garnering a lot of attention would clarify and curtail the emergency powers of the governor.
Senate Bill 1009 was introduced in January by Sen. Michele Ugenti-Rita to ensure state lawmakers have a voice in how the state responds to public health emergencies. The bill easily cleared the Senate and was transmitted to the House on Feb. 2.
On Thursday, SB1009 cleared the House Government & Elections Committee and is awaiting a Third Reading.
Supporters of SB1009 note Arizona has been under a COVID-19 public health state of emergency since March 2020. During time, Gov. Doug Ducey has issued nearly two dozen executive orders but the Arizona Legislature has been essentially kept on the sidelines throughout.
The bill by Ugenti-Rita (R-LD23) would establish a 30-day cap on a Governor’s initial proclamation with respect to a public health emergency. A Governor could extend the state of emergency in 30-day increments for up to 120 days total.
After that point, a public health emergency proclamation would terminate unless extended by the Arizona Legislature through passage of a concurrent resolution. Any legislative extension would also be effective for 30 days but could be approved “as many times as necessary.”
SB1009 also prohibits a Governor from proclaiming a new state of emergency based on the same conditions unless the Legislature consents via a concurrent resolution. Another provision of the bill would kick in if a Governor extends the public health emergency beyond the first 30 days.
It requires a written report be submitted to a joint committee of the Senate and House health committees. The joint committee would then be responsible for providing “a favorable or unfavorable review” of the extension after being briefed by the Governor’s Office and the director of the Arizona Department of Health Services.
The review by the joint committee would have to be shared with the Governor and all state lawmakers. In addition, the review would have to be posted in a conspicuous manner on both the Governor’s and the ADHS’s websites.
SB1009 is similar to a provision Ugenti-Rita introduced last year into one of the annual budget bills. The bill was later voided by the Arizona Supreme Court for technical reasons.
If signed into law, the change in a Governor’s powers would take effect in January 2023.
Arizona State Treasurer Kimberly Yee wants to ensure all State vendors understand their obligations in light of economic sanctions put on the Russian Federation by the U.S. and E.U. following Russia’s military invasion of Ukraine.
On Tuesday, Yee issued a Notice of Compliance about her expectation that State contractors, vendors, and other third-parties pay attention to the situation involving Russia and have all “necessary consents, approvals, and authorizations of all governmental authorities in connection with any transaction” dealing with the State.
“As you are aware, the State of Arizona and the Arizona State Treasurer’s Office (ASTO) are subject to U.S. laws, regulations, and orders applicable to its business activities and financial transactions, including those related to the international trade controls and economic sanctions,” Yee wrote. “As a vendor of the State of Arizona, you have separate and independent obligations under these same laws.”
Yee added that the State of Arizona has no investments in Russia, and while economic sanctions are subject to change, she expects all contractors and third parties “acting as intermediaries for the State of Arizona” to be knowledgeable about and remain in compliance with export and import laws, regulations, sanctions, embargoes, and policies.
That includes, but is not limited to, securing all clearances, export and import licenses, or exemptions therefrom, and making all required filings with appropriate governmental bodies, she noted.
“If you or your agents are unable to comply with the above foreign transaction requirements – including compliance with the United States trade sanctions related to Russia– in regard to your independent relationship with State of Arizona, you are required to notify the Arizona State Treasurer’s Office in writing immediately,” Yee wrote.
Yee also used the notice to suggest State contractors and vendors not be associated with financing any oil or other energy trades with Russia.
“Instead, we respectfully request you consider financing and investing in energy production in the United States, so we can be energy independent,” she wrote. “This is not only beneficial from a foreign policy perspective, but it is also a safer domestic investment.”
Yee’s suggestion, she noted, goes against the wishes of the Biden Administration but she pointed out there is no law against financing U.S. energy production.
“Doing so is a sound investment that does not carry the risk of foreign investment in that sector,” Yee wrote.
A municipality’s mayor or the chairperson of a county’s board of supervisors would not have the authority to order any business closed during a declared local emergency, if a bill introduced by House Majority Leader Leo Biasiucci is signed into law.
“Government should never have their hand in telling who can stay open, and picking winners and losers,” Biasiucci (R-LD5) recently said in support of House Bill 2107, which passed the House on Feb. 17 and was transmitted the next day to the Senate.
On Wednesday, HB2107 cleared the Senate Commerce Committee and now awaits further action in the Senate.
Under current state law, a mayor or county board chairperson has authority to declare proclamations in response to a local emergency, such as from fire, flood, earthquake, explosion, war, bombing, acts of the enemy or other natural or man-made disaster or by reason of riots, routs, affrays or other acts of civil disobedience that endanger life or property.
Once a local emergency is declared, the mayor or chairperson may then impose “all necessary regulations” to preserve the peace and local order through curfews; closing of streets, public places, and build facilities; and utilization of law enforcement agencies. The forced closure of businesses is also currently allowed under state law.
HB2107, however, would amend state law to repeal the authority of local government officials from ordering business closures. The bill is opposed by some cities and towns as well as the County Supervisors Association of Arizona, but many business groups and associations are calling for its passage due to the financial impacts of having to comply with local emergency declarations.
Among the issues is the fact many communities saw small businesses and locally owned businesses forced shut while national corporate businesses like Walmart and Home Depot were allowed to stay open.
