Arizona lawmakers have increased the aggregate expenditure limitation (AEL) for the state’s K-12 schools, eliminating the need for those schools to make more than $1.1 billion in spending cuts with several months left in the current school year.
House Concurrent Resolution 2039 allowed for the overall spending cap for all of the public schools to be lifted by a total of $1,154,028,997. The bipartisan resolution was introduced by House Speaker Rusty Bowers (R-LD25) and co-sponsored by Rep. Reginald Bolding (D-LD27).
It passed the House last week on a 45 to 14 vote, with 17 Republicans voting with the Democratic caucus to ensure the required two-thirds “supermajority” margin.
HCR2039 then came up for a vote in the Senate on Monday, passing on a 23 to 6 supermajority margin after 9 Republicans joined with all 14 of the chamber’s Democrats. Voting nay were Michelle Ugenti-Rita (LD23), Wendy Rogers (LD6), Warren Petersen (LD12), Vince Leach (LD11), David Gowan (LD14), and Sonny Borelli (LD5).
The only two legislators who did not cast a vote on the resolution were Rep. Athena Salman (D-LD26) who is on maternity leave and Sen. Kelly Townsend (R-LD16).
After Monday’s vote, Senate President Karen Fann directed the resolution be returned to the House so Speaker Bowers can transmit it to the Arizona Secretary of State. The governor’s signature is not required for enactment of the resolution.
Failure to pass the resolution by March 1 would have caused Arizona’s K-12 schools to begin planning for spending cuts. There was some debate as to whether school administrators would have actually had until April 1 to implement the cuts, but by law the Legislature’s deadline is March 1.
Issues with the AEL have been the subject of discussion for several years. It stems from the fact the Arizona Constitution requires the Economic Estimates Commission (EEC) to annually determine an AEL for all public school districts for the next fiscal year.
The AEL is currently calculated by adjusting the expenditures of local revenues for all school districts in FY1980 to reflect the changes in student population and the cost of living and multiplying the result by 1.10. Critics note the local revenues base has not been adjusted for four decades.
For FY2022, the EEC calculated the AEL for all public school districts to be $6,019,638,192. That figure is then compared against an annual report from the State Board of Education (SBE) of the actual aggregate expenditures of local revenues for all districts for the current year.
SBE calculated the FY2022 aggregate expenditures of local revenues to be $7,173,667,189.
When the SBE figure exceeds the AEL, the Legislature must authorize spending in excess of the AEL but only up to the SBE amount. Which is what lawmakers just did for this fiscal year. Or the SBE must notify each school district of the amount by which it may have to reduce its expenditures for the rest of the year despite the fact the money has been budgeted.
The passage of HCR2039 only applies to raising the AEL cap for the current fiscal year. Unless voters amend the Arizona Constitution’s calculation process the same limitation situation will likely continue.
A vote on the AEL could have taken place last month, but many lawmakers were waiting for a ruling from Judge John Hannah of the Maricopa County Superior Court about whether Proposition 208 revenues would exceed the current aggregate expenditure limit.
Prop 208 narrowly passed in November 2020 to enact a 3.5 percent tax on income above $250,000 ($500,000 married filing jointly). This is on top of the existing 4.5 percent tax rate for income above $159,000 ($318,000 married filing jointly).
A legal challenge followed, and last August the Arizona Supreme Court issued a ruling that Prop 208 revenues applied toward the AEL and thus would be unconstitutional if the taxes collected actually exceeded the spending cap. The justices then sent the case back to Hannah to crunch the numbers.
Hannah was made aware of the Legislature’s March 1 deadline and even acknowledged that some lawmakers wanted to see his ruling in the Prop 208 case first. However, the judge told the parties earlier this month that he has until March 10 under court rules to issue his ruling, and he did not intend to jump the case in front of others also awaiting rulings.
Several hundred women will be descending on Casino Del Sol later this week for the winter state meeting of the Arizona Federation of Republican Women (AzFRW).
For the last 98 years, the AzFRW has been dedicated to empowering Republican women of all ages and backgrounds to influence policy, develop candidates and elect the leaders of Arizona. The state federation is chartered under the National Federation of the Republican Women, considered largest grassroots network of Republican women in the country.
There are more than 3,000 state members across 8 regions and 27 clubs. A large number of those members are expected to participate in the AzFRW meeting in Tucson from Feb. 24 to 26.
The AzFRW also works closely with the Arizona Republican Party (AZGOP), County Republican Committees, and the Republican National Committee (RNC) to bolster the size and strength of the Republican Party through the recruitment of qualified candidates for office and the fortification of our grassroots community network.
“We work to promote an informed public through political education and activity; increase the effectiveness of women in the cause of good government; encourage and facilitate cooperation and communication among local clubs, their members and the AzFRW; foster loyalty to the Republican Party and promote its principles and candidates in all elections,” according to the AzFRW website.
AzFRW state officers are Cindy Casaus, President; Nancy Cottle, 1st Vice President – Programs; Arlene Goldblatt, 2nd Vice President – Membership; Robyn Cushman, 3rd Vice President – Ways & Means; Allison Mary, Secretary; Donna Stawicki, Treasurer; and Loraine Pellegrino, Immediate Past President.
Its regional directors are Pat Lorenzen, Granite Mountain RW (Region I); Glenda Bird, Queen Creek-San Tan Valley RWF (Region II); Susan Marcell, Thunder Mountain RW (Region III); LaJuana Gillette, London Bridge RW (Region IV); Elsie Tyree, RW of Prescott (Region V); Ashley Trussell, Mesa RW (Region VI); Jamie Kelly, Arrowhead RW (Region VII); and Linda Rizzo, Lincoln RW (Region VIII).
Public comments are due on or before March 4 for those wishing to provide input about a proposed plan by U.S. Air Force change how its special use airspace is utilized in several military operations areas, referred to as an MOA.
The USAF recently issued a Notice of Intent for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement to evaluate potential impacts of proposed actions involving MOA airspace which is used to support missions at Davis-Monthan AFB, Luke AFB, and Morris Air National Guard Base.
An MOA is an airspace established outside Class A airspace to segregate certain nonhazardous military activities from civilian and commercial air traffic. Vertical and lateral flight limits are specified in an MOA, as well as flight activities which are prohibited or allowed (and when) within the MOA.
According to the USAF, the MOAs proposed for optimization include Tombstone, Outlaw, Jackal, Reserve, Morenci, Bagdad, Gladden, Sells, Ruby, and Fuzzy. A map provided with the notice of intent shows those MOAs cover a large swath of airspace across Arizona,
The changes under consideration include updating the published times for using an MOA; adjusting the altitudes of existing MOAs to support low-altitude training; authorizing supersonic training at lower altitudes in more MOAs; and authorizing use of chaff and lowering the minimum release altitude for flares.
Some MOAs would see minimal changes, but others -such as Tombstone- would see an expansion of lateral flight limits, thus allowing military flights over areas of southeast Arizona and southwest New Mexico where such flights are not currently permitted.
The proposed action would not create any new MOAs nor make changes to land use beneath the MOAs or weapons release, according to the Air Force.
Only five in-person public meetings were scheduled with USAF personnel about the notice of intent, one of which was canceled in Bagdad due to COVID-19 restrictions in the area. The one meeting remaining in Arizona will be at Morenci on Feb. 23.
However, a meeting in Reserve, NM on Feb. 22 and one in Animas, NM on Feb. 24 are open to anyone who wishes to attend. An USAF spokesman said the public meetings were scheduled for impacted communities known to have limited internet access.
All of the information provided at the in-person meetings is available on the website. The website also includes the ability to submit comments online.
The USAF intends to update the website as the project moves forward.
Earlier this week the Arizona School Board Association voted to end its relationship with the National School Board Association, a group which has been under fire by parents, school officials, and legislators for several months.
In her Feb. 16 letter to NSBA, Dr. Sheila Harrison-Williams said the ASBA board of directors voted to discontinue membership in the national organization. Harrison-Williams, who is ASBA’s executive director, referenced a missive the national organization issued to President Joe Biden last fall in which the actions of parents trying to be involved in their children’s education were compared to acts of domestic terrorism.
NSBA has since replaced its executive director and launched a third-party review of certain association activities. But that has not eschewed further concern among Arizona’s school district officials and parents, Harrison-Williams wrote.
“Despite these efforts, it has become clear that ASBA’s continued membership in NSBA has become a hinderance to the work we are undertaking in Arizona on behalf of Arizona’s public school students,” she wrote, adding that the ASBA’s primary obligation is to advocate on behalf of Arizona’s students.
“We are unable to do that if we are continually called to account for the actions of NSBA,” Harrison-Williams wrote.
The ASBA’s announcement comes after state lawmakers were asked to support Senate Bill 1011, which would prohibit public school districts across Arizona from using taxpayer dollars to pay for membership in a state or national school board association. The bill is opposed by the Arizona Association of County School Superintendents and the Arizona School Administrators Association.
However, the issue has become a lightning rod among several school district boards outside Maricopa and Pima counties. Many of those boards have expressed dissatisfaction with what they see as partisan political interference by the NSBA. This, in turn, put pressure on ASBA’s board to cut ties with the national organization.
A Senate Bill which expands the definition of a public establishment under Arizona’s terrorism laws cleared its third reading in the Senate on a 28 to 0 vote Monday and has been transmitted to the House for action.
SB1332 sponsored by Sen. Warren Petersen (R-LD12) would amend Arizona Revised Statute 13-2301(C)(10) which defines what a public establishment is for purposes of prosecuting someone for criminal acts of terrorism.
The current definition is limited to “a structure, vehicle or craft that is owned, leased or operated by” the State or a political subdivision of the State including school districts; a public agency; the federal government; or a health care institution. Petersen’s bill seeks to add a private educational institution to the entities considered to be a public establishment under Arizona’s criminal code.
The strong bipartisan support for SB1332 is evident by its unanimous passage in the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month. It received a Proper for Consideration report from the Senate Rules Committee on Feb. 7 and went through both Senate caucuses the next day.
Under ARS 13-2301(C)(12)(b), terrorism includes any completed or preparatory offense which involves the use of a deadly weapon or a weapon of mass destruction or the intentional or knowing infliction of serious physical injury with the intent to cause “substantial damage to or substantial interruption of public communications, communication service providers, public transportation, common carriers, public utilities, public establishments, or other public services.”
