A bill that would ban vaccine mandates for government employees died in committee on Monday after a Republican lawmaker voted with Democrats.
State Rep. Matt Gress (R-LD04) said that while he opposed vaccine mandates, he believed that the bill’s language was problematic and “overly broad.” Gress specifically noted his concern that this bill would inhibit the readiness of the armed forces.
“I have deep concerns about our military being ready to address any issues that may arise, including being dispatched to other parts of the world,” said Gress.
Not true. I’ve long been on record on this issue. I do NOT think employers (government or private) should be able to force employees to get the the COVID vaccine. It’s an issue of individual liberty. 1/2 https://t.co/u8MdL8dA3O
The bill, HB2316, would prohibit the government and public accommodations from discriminating against individuals based on their vaccination status, in addition to banning a mandate. These prohibitions wouldn’t apply to health care institutions, schools, and child care facilities. State Rep. Rachel Jones (R-LD17) introduced the bill, along with clean-up language from a strike-everything amendment from State Rep. Barbara Parker (R-LD10).
Several members of the Arizona Freedom Caucus, State Reps. Jacqueline Parker (R-LD15) and Joseph Chaplik (R-LD03), spoke out against Gress’ vote. Parker called Gress’ opposition to the bill “unacceptable,” with Chaplik retweeting her remarks.
Not acceptable. Take notice LD4. 👇 Your reps are NOT representing your interests. https://t.co/HWPKMK598b
During Monday’s committee hearing, Jones said that her husband, a Border Patrol agent, recounted how she was inspired to introduce this legislation because he and others faced the vaccine mandate. Jones said that she and Sen. Justine Wadsack (R-LD17) were inundated with calls from federal employees and contractors worried about the government’s vaccine mandate. Jones testified that they helped over 3,000 individuals retain their jobs.
“I really did make this promise to a lot of the federal employees that I met a year ago that I would come up here and make sure that I would protect them as Arizona citizens from any further overreach from the federal government,” said Jones.
Jones declared that the COVID-19 vaccine should never have been mandated in the first place.
“I think the 10th Amendment gives us the right to protect our citizens if the federal government is potentially overreaching,” said Jones.
Jones also read an anonymous letter from a Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agent denied religious accommodations. The individual had served 17 years in the Air Force: 4 years active duty and 13 years in the reserves.
“’It was unsettling to think that I spent the last 17 years of my life ready to defend the constitutional rights of our citizens and never once did I realize that I somehow gave up my own constitutional rights in the process,’” read Jones. “’Here I am about to lose everything because I want medical freedom and, dare I say it, religious freedom.’”
Parker said that Arizona would be taking back authority from the federal government.
“A ‘yes’ vote means you will never allow a bureaucracy to use pseudoscience to destroy your civil liberties ever again,” said Parker.
Rep. Patricia Contreras (D-LD12) said that the bill was unnecessary, and claimed that the vaccine prevented COVID-19 deaths.
Among those who signaled opposition to the bill were the ACLU, Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, Arizona Public Health Association, American Cancer Society, Coconino County, Arizona Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Governor Katie Hobbs’ nominee to head up Arizona’s health services department failed to earn the support of a majority of Senate members on Tuesday.
Last week, the Arizona Senate’s bipartisan Committee on Director Nominations held its first hearing to vet the nominations of two of Governor Katie Hobbs’ appointments to lead state agencies. One, Angie Rodgers, who was nominated to lead the Department of Economic Security, received unanimous support from all five committee members (three Republicans and two Democrats). The other, Dr. Theresa Cullen, who was nominated to run the Department of Health Services (DHS), received an unfavorable recommendation after lawmakers had ample time to review her record and statements.
This week, the full Arizona Senate took up the nominations and rejected the governor’s choice to lead DHS. This was not any ordinary vote, however. Senate Democrats – and Governor Hobbs – claimed that the nomination was withdrawn, and the vote was moot. President Warren Petersen informed Senators that he had not received the withdrawal notice, and so the vote proceeded as scheduled. AZ Free News was told that the Governor attempted to withdraw her nomination of Dr. Cullen, but nothing was received by the Senate’s Secretary.
The Senate’s course was expected after the committee hearing, in which Petersen served up a warning following perceived inconsistencies in Dr. Cullen’s answers, tweeting, “Any nominee who gets caught lying at a confirmation hearing is not fit to serve the state of Arizona.”
Any nominee who gets caught lying at a confirmation hearing is not fit to serve the state of Arizona. The 9th floor could learn from Napolitano. Napolitano did not appoint radical lefties as directors.
In an exclusive interview with AZ Free News, Senator Jake Hoffman, the chairman of the Director Nominations Committee, had the following to say after the floor action and the governor’s attempt to frame Dr. Cullen’s defeat as a Republican-forced withdrawal:
“Personnel is policy, and Katie Hobbs demonstrated with the nomination of Theresa Cullen that her policy agenda is an extreme, authoritarian one that will have no problems infringing the civil liberties of the people of Arizona. Cullen’s record is one of lockdowns, curfews, school closures, forced vaccinations, shaming Pima County citizens, and lying during her confirmation hearing. The people of Arizona deserve better.”
After the Senate’s vote, the Senate Republican Caucus released statements from its leadership team, reacting to the latest development with Governor Hobbs’ problematic nomination. Senate President Petersen said, “We now hope that the Governor takes a more pragmatic approach to this process and appoints individuals in the mainstream, without a political agenda, and who are ready to answer questions from the public.”
Senate President Pro Tempore T.J. Shope stated, “We heard some pretty damning testimony in last week’s committee hearing that was only made worse with lies from Dr. Cullen. Presenting us with this kind of nominee only highlights a failure from the Hobbs administration.”
Senate Majority Whip Sine Kerr responded, “If only Governor Hobbs would have taken the time to conduct the same thorough vetting process as my colleagues and I did at the Senate, we would not be here today, voting on – and ultimately rejecting – a nominee who clearly is not an appropriate fit for this position.”
Governor Hobbs, on the other hand, was furious about the Senate’s action in rejecting her nominee for DHS, writing, “As long as Republicans choose politics over the people of Arizona, some of the most talented and qualified candidates will choose not to enter state service, and it is the people of Arizona who will suffer most because of these political games.” She characterized the behavior of “some Republicans on the State Senate’s committee on director nominations” as “nothing short of harassment,” and she bemoaned the rejection of a nominee with a “mountain of expertise and an immense track record of public health success.”
The Arizona Senate Democratic Caucus claimed in a tweet that Hobbs’ letter was “hand delivered and sent via email to ensure (the Republicans’) symbolic nonsense vote wasn’t necessary.
According to Arizona Senate sources, Governor Hobbs has now transmitted nine total nominations to the legislature, including the failed nomination of Dr. Cullen. The governor is expected to name a replacement nominee for Dr. Cullen, though she blasted Senate Republicans for her current dilemma: “If the Senate’s Director Nominations Committee is unwilling to acknowledge the skill and expertise of Dr. Cullen, there may be no public health professional in the State they would endorse.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Public schools who refuse to have armed officers on campus won’t receive grant money for school safety.
In a press release last Wednesday announcing the latest round of $80 million in funding from the School Safety Grant Program, Arizona Department of Education (ADE) Superintendent Tom Horne told schools to prioritize having armed law enforcement. Otherwise, the superintendent said that ADE wouldn’t recommend the school for funding to the State Board of Education.
“Every school should have a law enforcement officer to protect students and staff, and this should be accomplished on an urgent basis,” said Horne. “Delay in implementing this goal could leave schools more vulnerable to a tragic catastrophe. Schools that currently have no armed presence yet submit grants applications that do not request an officer will not receive a recommendation from this Department to the State Board of Education.”
Superintendent Horne is urging schools to prioritize having armed officers from law enforcement or highly trained security on campus. Our office is accepting school safety grant program applications here >>> https://t.co/6bTNomHqvqpic.twitter.com/W4h4HVGStO
— Arizona Department of Education (@azedschools) February 8, 2023
Under former Superintendent Kathy Hoffman, funding from the grant program could be applied to school resource officers or counselors. One of Hoffman’s main priorities during her first term and re-election campaign was to shrink the disparity between the number of students and counselors.
Hoffman stated that her administration slashed the student-to-counselor ratio by 20 percent. However, Horne’s administration noted that school violence has increased in recent years.
Under my leadership, @azedschools has cut the student-to-school counselor ratio by 20%. Even with this, we still have more work to do, and I will continue advocating for student's mental and physical health.
The ADE cited an increase in reported incidents of school threats, real and fake weapons found on campus, and “disturbing” social media posts inferring school violence. ADE also reported numerous receiving phone calls from Phoenix-area high school teachers about fights that, in at least one instance, risked a female teacher’s safety.
Horne noted in the ADE press release that this push for schools to have armed officers wasn’t in order to exclude other school safety measures that the program funds, such as counselors. He recalled his support for counselors as far back as 1978 during his services as a school board member, when he voted against eliminating counselors from their district.
“Schools still ought to have counselors but providing a safe school atmosphere that requires an armed presence is the first priority,” said Horne.
Horne later toldABC 15 that there wasn’t any reason why schools should refuse police protection on campuses.
“I can’t understand how anybody doesn’t understand how important it is that we be sure we don’t have any massacres in Arizona,” said Horne. “The first priority has to be the safety of the students and we don’t want a situation where 20 or 30 students are killed because no one was there to defend them.”
In a tweet, ADE posed a hypothetical, asking what a school would do if an armed “maniac” invaded a school that only had counselors and no armed officers.
Superintendent Horne supports having a counselor in every school, but if a maniac invades your school with a gun determined to kill people, what's the counselor going to do?https://t.co/RVL7Lt7ioi
Several days after ADE announced its decision on school safety grants, a 13-year-old Cottonwood-Oak Creek School District student making a “kill list” was arrested; school officials determined that the student posed a credible threat.
School Safety is a team effort. Thank you to the administrators, school resource officer, and counselors who helped avoid a tragedy. https://t.co/T80tNsxlNU
State Rep. Jennifer Pawlik (D-LD13) called Horne’s decision “disappointing.” Pawlik also criticized the decision to make the announcement during National School Counselors Week.
The ACLU of Arizona asserted that school safety couldn’t be achieved with police presence on campus.
School safety is not achieved by placing armed cops on campuses. It’s achieved when schools are well-resourced and students have the mental health support they need.
Forcing schools to follow these requirements prevents communities from deciding what’s best for their students. https://t.co/whefParndA
In addition to this funding, ADE is working with former Phoenix Police Department leaders to provide additional safety resources and procedures to schools.
Opposition to armed officers on campus often comes from concerns over a racial divide. Tensions heightened in one school district last year over discussions of funding school resource officers (SROs), about one month after the Uvalde school shooting. Chandler Unified School District (CUSD) Board Member Lindsay Love said that she and too many others, including children and parents, felt uncomfortable with having more police officers on campus.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Two weeks after the Arizona Senate passed the state’s budget for 2023-2024, the House followed suit, setting the stage for another early legislative session showdown with Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs’ office.
Last week, the Arizona House attempted to pass a budget, but Republican Liz Harris voted with Democrats to stop progress on this front in a narrowly divided chamber. Rep. Harris tweeted after her February 9 vote that she “will reject this budget until we right size and restore it to a level that is commensurate with our economic growth.”
Time was ultimately on Speaker Ben Toma’s side, and this week, all House Republicans came together to join their Senate colleagues in passing the $15.8 billion budget. According to the communication from the Arizona Senate Republican Caucus on February 1, this budget is “$2.3 billion less than the state budget that was approved last year and $1.3 billion less than the Governor’s proposed budget.”
Also, “to absorb any revenue loss, this approved budget leaves $1.8 billion in cash available by the end of fiscal year 2024, in addition to the $1.4 billion available in the state’s Rainy-Day Fund.”
In a release sent out by the Arizona House Republicans touting the passage of this budget, Speaker Toma proclaimed victory and challenged the governor to sign the legislation for the good of all Arizonans:
“House Republicans have acted today to pass a responsible state budget. It’s one that was crafted with the needs of the state, and of Arizona’s families in mind, families who are struggling during this economic recession caused by reckless federal overspending and far-left priorities….This budget passed today continues the same budget which was approved less than a year ago with a bipartisan majority and was cheered at the time by Governor Hobbs and Democratic Minority Leader Cano.”
🚨FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE🚨@AZHouseGOP Pass Responsible Budget Fully Funding Priorities of the State of Arizona
Speaker Toma’s reference to then-Secretary of State Hobbs supporting the last budget was highlighted by Rep. Jacqueline Parker, who shared a tweet from Hobbs from the conclusion of last year’s process:
We’ll see if it takes her a whole day to change her mind & abuse her veto power, or if she’ll take the time to pretend like she’s actually reading bills before she vetoes them. 🤔 👇 pic.twitter.com/16notqaSAp
Other House Republicans celebrated the budget passage after their votes on the floor. Rep. Austin Smith tweeted, “I voted YES on the budget today to keep the government running so no Arizonan is held hostage to special interests. Democrats keep threatening a veto from Katie Hobbs. They are willing to shutdown the government to protect special interests. SAD!”
I voted YES on the budget today to keep the government running so no Arizonan is held hostage to special interests. Democrats keep threatening a veto from Katie Hobbs.
They are willing to shutdown the government to protect special interests. SAD! pic.twitter.com/aF7rVDxKX5
House Majority Leader Leo Biasiucci stated, “Arizona House passes budget to avoid Arizona shutdown. Will Governor Hobbs Veto this bipartisan budget or will she do what’s right for every resident of Arizona?”
Arizona House passes budget to avoid Arizona shutdown. Will Governor Hobbs Veto this bipartisan budget or will she do what's right for every resident of Arizona? 🇺🇲 pic.twitter.com/gUyXax0AqA
Arizona House Democrats were much less complimentary of this week’s action to pass the budget and transmit to the governor’s office.
Rep. Laura Terech tweeted, “This is a budget that is destined for a veto. Hopefully, we will be sitting down together soon to do the real work of finding meaningful bipartisan solutions for Arizonans.”
This is a budget that is destined for a veto. Hopefully, we will be sitting down together soon to do the real work of finding meaningful bipartisan solutions for Arizonans. https://t.co/OXXhIolHRX
Minority Whip Marcelino Quiñonez said, “The dynamics in Arizona politics changed in November 2022, & this rushed budget headed to the Governor’s desk ignores that reality. The final budget we pass as a body this session must be bipartisan, everything until then is only a distraction. The work starts after the veto.”
The dynamics in Arizona politics changed in November 2022, & this rushed budget headed to the Governor’s desk ignores that reality. The final budget we pass as a body this session must be bipartisan, everything until then is only a distraction.
The Republican-led budget is dead on arrival at the Ninth Floor. Governor Hobbs released a statement in opposition to the incoming budget, saying, “The issues Arizonans are facing require more than business as usual. I will not sign a budget that is just more of the same and does nothing to demonstrate a desire to move our state forward.”
The issues Arizonans are facing require more than business as usual. I will not sign a budget that is just more of the same and does nothing to demonstrate a desire to move our state forward.
Benjamin Franklin once famously said, “[I]n this world, nothing is certain except death and taxes” — true, unless you’re a leftist political nonprofit. For many of them, taxation isn’t certain, even if they run afoul of tax-exempt status requirements.
Funding sources, expenditure recipients, and even those operating these nonprofits may remain secretive under the current state of lax federal enforcement. These tax-free and opacity perks are possible through two interrelated federal tax classifications: 501(c)(3), or “C3,” and 501(c)(4), or “C4.” There are over 27,000 C3s and just over 1,200C4s registered in Arizona. The big difference between the two classifications is that donations to IRS-recognized C3 organizations are deductible under our income tax code. And the Left has learned how to exploit this tax status for their political benefit.
In Arizona, many liberal C3 and C4 nonprofits work in tandem, each executing symbiotic duties while coordinating their activities and sharing data and resources. Sometimes, these C3 and C4 duos are “sister” organizations — meaning, they’re affiliated rather than independent entities allied over common goals.
These arrangements are legal so long as clear distinctions are made between charitable and non-charitable activities. Over the last several months, AZ Free News has conducted an extensive review of over a dozen different liberal nonprofits in the state, examining their websites, tax documents, and social media accounts. Our research has found that many of these organizations have blurred the lines on their political activities via various C3 and C4 groups. In some cases, there appeared to be no distinction at all, with some C3 organizations providing completely different accounts of their tax-deductible program activities to the IRS compared to what they shared publicly.
How the IRS Intended for C3 and C4 Organizations to Operate
C3s have two major qualifiers: they’re supposed to be nonpartisan and apolitical—meaning, they can’t expend funds or use resources to coordinate with political activity being conducted by C4s.
C3s must organize and operate exclusively for purposes that are one or more of the following: charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals.
The IRS defines “charitable” as relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.
The IRS expressly prohibits C3s from being an “action organization”: those engaging in political or legislative activities. Political activities include the direct or indirect participation or intervention in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any political candidate. The IRS also prohibits political campaign fund contributions or public statements of positions, either verbal or written, on behalf of the organization in favor of or opposing any candidate.
The IRS does condone voter education activities, such as get-out-the-vote (GOTV) efforts like voter registration. However, any evidence of political bias is forbidden: favoritism of a candidate, opposing a candidate in any way, or “hav[ing] the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates.” Lobbying is also largely forbidden.
Comparatively, the IRS classifies C4 organizations into one of two categories: social welfare organizations or local association of employees. The former concerns civic leagues or organizations organized exclusively for social welfare promotion, not profit. The IRS clarifies that social welfare promotion doesn’t include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate. Those that do must not render that activity as their primary activity, and risk being subjected to taxation. The latter concerns membership-based organizations with net earnings devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.
How Leftist C3 and C4s Operate in Arizona
Our review of leftist C3s in Arizona appears to indicate that their activities are overtly partisan and political. They coordinate with politically active C4s to achieve shared, partisan goals, and receive political action committee (PAC) funding while doing so. Often, these leftist C4s have either direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to one or more candidates.
Progressive activists leading these C3s have effectively mastered the art of exploiting the IRS code for partisan advantage, helping to maximize liberal donor partisan impact with their dollars while still hiding their identity. The C3s will claim that their allowable vote (GOTV) efforts, such as voter registration, are nonpartisan. They will claim they’re reaching out to certain, “marginalized” demographic groups; however, these groups turn out to be known Democratic voter bases.
One example of this is Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, the C3 sister organization of Mi Familia Vota, the C4. The former admitted on their 2020 tax filing to coordinating political activity with the latter. The executive director of Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Hector Sanchez Barba, has publicly advocated for the losses of Republican candidates.
“We will keep working to keep extremism, Trump and MAGA out of our democracy,” wrote Sanchez Barba. “@MiFamiliaVota.”
In response to a Politico article documenting the GOP’s underperformance in last year’s midterm elections, Sanchez Barba thanked Latino voters for having Democrats win.
Meanwhile, their partner C4s pay for media and partisan activities like ad campaigns for candidates. It’s uncertain whether the funding for these activities comes from their C3 partners since those grant or cost-sharing agreements aren’t public. The IRS requires that C3 funds given to C4s be restricted to charitable uses — not electioneering activity.
The C3-C4 duo targets certain voter demographics to achieve a partisan outcome. They contact Democrat-leaning voters to get their vote cast, convince newly registered voters to vote Democratic through mailers and ads supportive of Democratic candidates and causes, and publicly support certain partisan ballot initiatives.
The C3-C4 sister organizations thinly veil their efforts that a division exists between them. For example, Mi Familia Vota spent tens of thousands on TV advertising that advocated for the election of Reginald Bolding ahead of last year’s primary. However, they listed a staffer for their C3 sister organization, Mi Familia Vota Education, as the point-of-contact on that campaign filing.
As AZ Free News reported in Part One of this series, Mi Familia Vota receives funding from One Arizona, a C3, which in turn receives its funding from the Tides Foundation, George Soros’ Open Societies Foundation, and several different organizations under Arabella Advisors.
.@RealMarkFinchem, a MAGAmigo, lies, & says that the 2020 election was fraudulent. If elected, he would use his position to help Trump. We are fighting for free and clear elections this cycle. Our democracy is at stake in Arizona, we must fight back. We say #BastaFinchempic.twitter.com/WPVSjflt2L
Ahead of the midterm election last June, One Arizona advertised a job opening for an independent expenditure (IE) campaign manager. The position appears to be one for a political staffer, which would constitute prohibited electioneering.
While not a complete pitcure, the above graphic illustrates some of the connections in the left’s secretive infrastructure and how they relate to Arizona elections.
Leftist C3s also hire for both the C3 and C4, resulting in shared jobs and salaries. One Arizona (C3) and Arizona Wins (C4) co-hired staff including a field director, field program coordinator, and finance and compliance director. That shared salary should not be used for political work. One recent example of this was a job listing by Arizona Coalition for Change (C3) and Our Voice Our Vote (C4) for a data manager that would work within the duo’s political and grassroots lobbying arms.
These blurred lines surrounding co-hires don’t just apply to staff. Arizona Center for Empowerment (ACE, a C3) and LUCHA (C4) share an executive director, Alejandra (Alex) Gomez, as well as staffers. This relationship is further complicated by the fact that ACE listed LUCHA as its “Employer of Record” on their latest tax return. Under Gomez, both organizations have expressed their partisanship.
Last year, LUCHA launched an initiative to get Democratic candidates elected: “LUCHA Blue.” The nonprofit pledged to prioritize certain races and voter bases in its GOTV efforts. On its hiring page for the initiative, LUCHA disclosed that it would staff between 70 and 105 people.
“We believe that not all candidates align with the mission of LUCHA, and this is why we created a campaign not only to flip Arizona Blue — but LUCHA Blue!” stated LUCHA. “Overall, the goal of the campaign is to win these targeted races, increase Latin/Hispanic voter turnout, and educate voters on the voting process.” (emphasis added)
In one post following Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) winning re-election last November, LUCHA appeared to affirm that both it and ACE assisted in organizational efforts to assure Kelly’s victory.
Wealthy dark money donors have a greater financial incentive to back C3s. 75 percent of their donations can go to politics and qualify as tax deductible — effectively maximizing their gift-giving while affording them a tax break. C4 donations aren’t tax deductible.
The IRS has long been aware of the disparity between the lawful intent for C3 and C4 entities, and the current reality of C3-C4 relationships. As ProPublica revealed in 2019, the IRS essentially gave up on holding nonprofits accountable.
The following are some of Arizona’s liberal C3-C4 nonprofit duos: One Arizona and Arizona Wins, Arizona Center for Empowerment and Living United for Change in Arizona, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund and Mi Familia Vota Victory, Chispa AZ/League of Conservation Voters Education Fund and League of Conservation Voters, Arizona Coalition for Change and Our Voice Our Vote, Instituto Lab and Instituto Power, Rural Arizona Engagement and Rural Arizona Action, and Voto Latino Foundation and Voto Latino.
The relationships between these nonprofits and the awareness of their straining tax law will be further explained in the next installment of this series.
This is Part Two in a series on the Left’s secret infrastructure to turn Arizona blue. Be sure to sign up for our newsletter to be notified of Part Three in the series.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
It’s been just over a month since new Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Horne, was sworn into office, and his hire to run the Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) Program has been delivering significant results for Arizona families.
Christine Accurso, the new ESA Executive Director, has been a longtime pro-life and school choice advocate in the East Valley. Her family has benefited from the ESA program for years – well before the Arizona Legislature expanded its scope in 2022. After the bill was signed into law by former-Governor Doug Ducey, Accurso singlehandedly led a grassroots army of moms and dads from around Arizona to defeat a campaign meant to refer ESA expansion to the ballot and delay the implementation of school choice and freedom for tens of thousands of children in our state.
Since coming on with the Arizona Department of Education, Accurso has been hard at work to save the expanded ESA program a second time, bringing staffing up to the levels intended by the legislature, handling the huge backlog of funding and reimbursement requests, vetting and approving new applications for the program, and ensuring that parents are receiving timely and relevant information from her office.
To that end, Accurso has been extremely diligent in sending out weekly emails to account holders, explaining what her program is working on, clarifying any previous misconceptions about ESAs, and giving updates on the number of students benefiting from school choice in Arizona. Her first email, sent January 3 (which was her inaugural day leading the program), alerted parents and guardians that there were 45,170 students receiving an ESA. In her email this week, that number was up to 46,971 – and Accurso briefed readers that the program is “receiving a minimum of 150 new applications a day.”
Accurso’s latest email also gave an update on her processing que, which is very helpful for account holders to realize the reasons behind some delays in payment processing or approval of desired resources for students. The Marketplace has a backlog of 4,578; Direct Pay of 4,032; Reimbursements of 24,409; and pre-paid debit cards of 63,125 – and there are 4,000 orders coming in each day to be processed. These numbers are significantly down from the original backlog Accurso inherited from the previous administration (and shared in her January 13 email), which was 171,575 orders.
The ESA Executive Director has also been planning and executing the formation of a parent advisory committee – an action she forecasted in her January 13 email to account holders. Accurso announced in her January 25 email that the application process for this committee was open – with 15 to 30 members selected to serve in a volunteer capacity. There were 140 applications received by the ESA Program for this committee, per Accurso’s February 8 email, and she informed interested readers that “we will be finalizing the candidates and communicating with them soon.”
The February 8 email to account holders was lengthy, which Accurso apologized for, but it was filled with necessary information. Accurso explained that she had “spent her first month as the executive director adjusting our office’s approach to everything in the ESA program to align with the state law.” She clarified the law and requirements for an “individual vs facility/business offering tutoring or teaching services,” and she gave an update on “accessing your ESA funds.” She gave a lot of information on the four ways account holders could access their ESA funds, including some new directives on using the pre-paid debit card. Accurso warned that her office “does plan to cancel the use of debit cards for all accounts that have not submitted the appropriate receipts by the (required) deadline or have purchased unallowable items with the card (For example: Chevron, Chick-Fil-A, Taco Bell and Dillard’s).”
Accurso realizes that one of the deadliest attacks toward ESA programs is the lack of oversight by those entrusted to distribute and steward the funds, and the propensity of some account holders to misuse funds that have been earmarked for specific educational purposes – whether intentionally or unintentionally. This is why she appears to be laser focused on bringing the Arizona ESA program into conformity with the law and the original intent of the legislature. Her weekly updates will continue to provide much-needed guiderails for parents and guardians as the program moves forward under the watchful eyes of Superintendent Horne.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
