The Maricopa County Community College District’s (MCCCD) decision last month to approve a $155,000 settlement to a Scottsdale Community College professor ensures the district, the college, and staff members will not be sued for how they handled an Islamic student’s complaint against the professor.
Nicholas Damask received the payout in response to an October 2020 notice of claim against college officials who publicly criticized the longtime professor’s curriculum in a World Politics course. A notice of claim is mandated by state law before a lawsuit can be initiated against the state or any political subdivision, including boards, commissions, committees, and districts.
Damask has agreed to not make negative statements about District employees nor how they handled the student’s April 2020 complaint about quiz questions related to terrorism and Islam. His attorney was to receive $30,000 of the settlement, public records show.
In a related matter, a federal lawsuit filed by the student in June 2020 against Damask and the District in an effort to stop the professor from teaching about negative aspects of Islam was dismissed by Judge Susan Brnovich of the U.S. District Court. The lawsuit alleged the professor required students to express agreement with anti-Islam views in order to receive a passing grade.
An appeal of the dismissal is pending at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The District has until April 23 to file its response and Damask has a May 21 deadline.
Damask’s initial claim against MCCCD sought $500,000 based on his contention that Scottsdale Community College officials placed the professor’s reputation in question by not doing enough to defend him against the student’s allegations. The claim also cited concerns for the safety of Damask and his family stemming from threats stoked by the controversy.
Within days of the student’s complaint -which was fueled by social media attention- the college president publicly apologized for the professor’s conduct, disparaged the quiz questions, and said Damask would issue an apology. However, MCCCD Interim Chancellor Steven Gonzales contradicted the college president by issuing an apology to Damask.
Gonzales also bemoaned Scottsdale Community College’s “rush to judgment” undertaken without “full consideration for our professor’s right of academic freedom.”
In response to the student’s complaint, Damask argued that the disputed questions dealt specifically with a section of the coursework about terroristic sects within Islam. Similar sects in other religions were also covered in the class, he said.
One outcome of Damask pushing back on how the student’s complaint was handled is that district officials undertook a review of policies and training for how to respond to such matters. That review led to plans to establish a Committee on Academic Freedom.
The settlement also restates that faculty members will have the freedom to choose the materials they use with a course curriculum.
On Feb. 12, 2019, Pat Call had been serving on the Cochise County Board for more than a decade representing for the Sierra Vista area, which includes the Army’s Fort Huachuca. It was also the day Call and his two fellow supervisors took part in a public and then a private meeting which ended with his appointment as justice of the peace of the Sierra Vista Justice Court.
The new job paid twice Call’s supervisor salary despite the fact he was not an attorney and had no judicial experience. But there was no advance public notice that Call was even interested in the position, and during the meeting Call suggested the board not utilize a nomination committee to review any perspective candidates, all of whom were lawyers with experience in justice court operations.
The Arizona Supreme Court announced Wednesday that it will hear a local resident’s challenge to Call’s appointment based on alleged violations of Arizona’s Open Meeting Law and Conflict of Interest Statute. The case is being watched by public agencies and government attorneys across the state.
“When it comes to holding public officials accountable for backdoor deals, this is the most important case in Arizona history,” appellate attorney David Abney said after the justices accepted the case for review.
Abney is one of three attorneys representing David Welch, the Sierra Vista resident who challenged the appointment. He told AZ Free News it does not matter that Call’s term on the bench ended in December 2020.
“There are still penalties and sanctions that can be assessed against those who violate the open-meeting and conflict-of-interest laws,” Abney said. “So Justice of the Peace Call’s departure does not insulate him or his collaborators from liability.”
The county defendants contend they did nothing improper in filling the court vacancy, and point to the fact the Cochise County Attorney’s Office provided legal advice throughout the process.
“The Arizona Legislature has made clear that, for a plaintiff making claim to a private right of action under Arizona’s conflict of interest or open meeting laws, he or she must be ‘affected by’ the alleged violation,” according to the county’s petition for review to the supreme court. The county contends Welch has no standing to challenge the board’s action.
Welch lives within the boundaries of the Sierra Vista Justice Court and had a misdemeanor case pending at the court at the time of Call’s appointment. His case would have been heard by Call, but the county attorney’s office had the case dismissed the day Call took office.
The county later invoked the ratification option in Arizona’s Open Meeting Law to reaffirm Call’s appointment as justice of the peace during a special meeting in March 2019. Welch, however, takes the position shared by Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich that the supervisors may still be open to personal liability if it is shown they engaged in misconduct.
But it is not only the open meeting law issues that Welch has challenged.
Public records show Call engaged in discussions about how to fill the court vacancy he was awarded a few hours later. He also took part in an executive session with the other supervisors, a deputy county attorney, and the county administrator just before being appointed.
Arizona’s conflict of interest statute requires a public officer who has a substantial interest in any decision of a public agency to make known such interest. Then the public officer “shall refrain from participation in any manner…in such decision.”
There is no ratification option in that statute to simply “do-over” or reaffirm a decision.
A judge from outside Cochise County initially dismissed Welch’s complaints on the basis of a lack of standing to bring the challenges. That ruling was overturned in a unanimous Arizona Court of Appeals decision in October 2020, which sent the case back to the lower court for a new hearing on Welch’s arguments.
For now the case is on hold while the supreme court reviews the appellate decision. Attorney Chris Russell has been on Welch’s case from the beginning and understands some residents are frustrated the case has been going on more than two years with no immediate end in sight. But he is looking forward to the attention the Arizona Supreme Court’s review will generate.
“Corruption thrives in the darkness,” Russell said. “Without open and transparent government free from conflicts-of-interest we are no better than a cabal run by the rich and powerful. History has proven that such a circumstance is always detrimental to the people.”
The supreme court has given the parties until early May to file any updated legal briefings before oral arguments are conducted later this year.
The Arizona Supreme Court has been asked to review a decision by the Sedona-Oak Creek Airport Authority to evict a longtime leasee in a nearly decade-long dispute that has involved a federal judge, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the expenditure of hundreds of thousands for legal services.
In April 2019, the Airport Authority initiated eviction action against Dakota Territory Tours ACC, which has operated at the airport for several years. The company also operates as Sedona Air Tours and Red Rock Biplane Tours.
Dakota Territory has specialized in air tours of the Grand Canyon area since 1994 with fixed wing aircraft and helicopters, many which can seat four to six passengers. The Airport Authority contends Dakota Territory has not had a valid sublease at the airport since July 2017 and has attempted to evict the company since then, but various legal actions have delayed the action.
A Yavapai County judge put the 2019 eviction action on hold while the parties litigated whether Dakota was lawfully present at the airport. The court’s decision came down against the company, and in January of this year the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court ruling.
A petition for review was filed by Dakota Territory with the Arizona Supreme Court in February, and the Airport Authority has submitted a response. If the justices decide to hear the case it would likely be months before a decision is issued.
According to public records, the Sedona-Oak Creek Airport is situated on land owned by Yavapai County, although the county plays a limited role in what happens there. Instead, the Airport Authority leases the property from the county for $1 per year and runs the day-to-day operations under the supervision of an airport director.
Dakota Territory Tours’s dispute with the Airport Authority can be traced back to a 2012 sublease which allowed the company to fly in and out of the airport. A series of amendments kept the sublease in effect through April 2017 at which time the deal was kept in effect per a settlement agreement between Dakota and the Airport Authority in connection to a lawsuit the company filed in 2014.
Part of the agreement called for Dakota to continue to use its space while the Airport Authority put together a formal Request for Proposals (RFP) for that space.
Then in June 2017, the Airport Authority awarded the sublease for tour company space to Guidance Air Service LLC, another longtime leasee. The award made Guidance the only air tour company that would operate at the airport without paying high airport use-fees.
Less than 10 minutes after the RFP was awarded to Guidance, an attorney for the Airport Authority sent Dakota a letter demanding the company vacate its leased space within 30 days.
Dakota protested the award, alleging Airport Director Amanda Shankland altered the selection criteria at the last minute and accepted Guidance’s bid even though it would purportedly provide 32 percent less in revenues for the airport. The company also alleged the RFP process was “rigged” to ensure no air tour provider other than Guidance could emerge the winner.
Shankland denied Dakota’s allegations and rejected the challenge, arguing that the airport could not support more than one air tour operator.
In August 2017, Dakota and a partner company sued the non-profit Airport Authority, Yavapai County, Guidance, and Shankland in federal court. The anti-trust lawsuit alleged the Airport Authority lodged a false complaint with the FAA against about the company and failed to comply with the settlement of Dakota’s 2014 complaint.
The federal lawsuit also alleged the airport’s Master Plan allowed for more than one tour operator, and that the RFP process “was intended to and will ultimately foreclose and end competition” for airport-based air tours of the Sedona area.
A federal judge in Prescott dropped Yavapai County and Guidance from Dakota’s lawsuit in 2018, but allowed the claims against the Airport Authority and Shankland to move forth. In April 2019, that same judge dismissed the case per a stipulation among the remaining parties, “with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys’ fees in this action.”
With the federal case dismissed, there was nothing stopping the Airport Authority from moving forward with enforcing the 30-day vacate notice through a forcible detainer action with the Yavapai County Superior Court. By then, a number of concerns had been documented in various court files.
For instance, the Airport Authority presented an independent consultant to provide expert testimony to support one of its arguments against Dakota. However, neither the expert nor the Authority revealed to the court that the expert was affiliated with Guidance.
There is also a record showing the complaint made to the FAA about Dakota was found to be unsubstantiated. And that if Dakota could no longer be based at the Sedona airport then the company would have had to pay the Airport Authority for every takeoff and landing at a non-leasee level.
That would have cost Dakota, which employed about 20 people, to pay about $45,000 per month, based on its late 2018 to early 2019 flights.
If the Arizona Supreme Court refuses to hear Dakota’s appeal then the company will be responsible for paying the Airport Authority’s legal expenses related to the eviction action.
What to do with Arizona’s $350 million or so surplus has a lot of legislators pulling out their calculators and trying to figure out how best to spend the money, and whether to implement Gov. Doug Ducey’s proposed permanent tax cuts.
Among the leading contenders for allocating the surplus funds to increase some public health and healthcare spending, increasing funds for higher education, and addressing the state’s unemployment situation. One issue likely to be front and center is what consideration should be given to COVID-19 relief funds received from the federal government in deciding how to divvy up the surplus.
The Finance Advisory Committee will meet Thursday at Noon to discuss this year’s budget process. But two ideas for using the state’s surplus to change Arizona’s tax system are already gaining momentum.
One option is to convert the state to a flat income tax, something that would likely need to be transitioned to over a two to three year period. A sales tax is an example of a flat tax, where everyone pays the same percentage.
It is an idea popular this year among Republican legislators, with heavy support from House Majority Leader Ben Toma, Sen. J.D. Mesnard, and Rep. John Kavanagh. However, coming up with a plan that can receive enough votes will be a challenge, given that legislators have differing ideas of how a flat tax system should work.
Another option for utilizing the surplus is to implement permanent tax cuts, such as the $600 million of income tax cuts proposed by Ducey in his 2021-2022 budget. The governor’s proposal would phase in the cuts over three years starting in 2022.
Other tax cuts could involve reductions in residential and commercial property taxes, although many cities and towns are opposing that idea.
More will be known after Thursday’s meeting as to what consensus House leaders can come up with.
Just two days after he took part in a vehicle pursuit and arrest involving human smuggling, Cochise County Sheriff Mark Dannels is set to meet with U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on Thursday in Texas.
Mayorkas is scheduled to visit with law enforcement officials and tour facilities in El Paso and McAllen. Among those invited to discuss the immigration crisis along the country’s 1,900-mile southwest border will be Dannels, who serves as chairman of the National Sheriffs’ Association’s border security committee.
The group, Dannels told AZ Free News, is striving “to bring collective resolutions and answers to our border security issues.”
Cochise County shares an 83-mile stretch of the international border. It was Dannels’ experiences with drug and human smuggling that prompted then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen to swear in the sheriff on the Homeland Security Advisory Council in 2018.
But last month, Dannels was one of 32 HSAC members fired by Mayorkas, leaving just three members in place. Dannels says he plans to bring a letter to hand deliver to Mayorkas addressing the sheriff’s thoughts about HSAC, which the secretary has said will be reformatted in the coming weeks.
“I hope all stakeholders will have a better understanding with some defined objectives to work toward as we promote collaboration,” Dannels said, adding the current border situation “is more important than me and my appointment.”
Dannels has been outspoken about the Biden Administration’s lack of coordination and communication with local officials concerning the surge of undocumented immigrants coming into the United States. He is also being suggested as a possible Republican candidate for U.S. Representative when Ann Kirkpatrick seat comes open with her retirement in 2022.
On Tuesday, Dannels was involved in a vehicle pursuit which led to the arrest of three men on a residential property in Hereford. One of the men was a Phoenix resident suspected of transporting two illegal immigrants for financial gain.
According to the Cochise County Sheriff’s Office, deputies were alerted to a possible human smuggling incident south of Sierra Vista around 3 p.m. A vehicle description was provided along with a license plate number.
Dannels was the first to locate the vehicle “travelling well over the posted speed limit for that area,” a CCSO statement reads. “Sheriff Dannels and a second Deputy conducted a traffic stop near Three Canyons and Highway 92, however as they approached the vehicle the driver sped away from the scene heading north on Highway 92.”
A short time later the occupants of the truck exited the vehicle near a residence. Dannels and his deputies were assisted by Arizona Department of Public Safety and the U.S. Border Patrol to apprehend the men without injury, although one of the men attempted unsuccessfully to climb up to a second floor balcony of the house, losing his shoes in the process.
“Initial interviews of the apprehended suspects revealed that two of the men were undocumented immigrants who were identified and released to US Border Patrol, while the third man without the shoes was identified as a US citizen and the driver of the vehicle,” the statement reads. That third man was Dustin Howerton, 23, of Phoenix.
