In the election for the Scottsdale Unified School District Governing Board, it appears that one campaign is playing by the rules while the other is not. And the City of Scottsdale Code Enforcement Department has chosen to favor the side breaking the rules.
A concerned citizen contacted AZ Free News and provided photographic evidence that the campaign for candidates Donna Lewis, Matthew Pittinsky, and Michael Sharkey, installed large street signs over a month before the allowed period, which begins on August 26.
Social media posts from the North Scottsdale Democrats and campaigner Shea Najafi indicated that the organization participated in installing the signs prior to the permitted date.
City of Scottsdale Code Enforcement Officer Cathy Maldonado confirmed in correspondence provided to AZ Free News that the permitted date for school board campaign signage is Aug 26.
However, after multiple complaints, the city told the citizen that it is “unable to remove School Board election signs based off the time they are being placed,” unless “they are in a sign free zone, obstructing view / safety hazard, or if they do not have contact information.”
According to the City of Scottsdale’s Campaign Signs Guidelines and Regulations, “Campaign/Political Signs are allowed beginning 71 days before a primary election and ending 15 days after the general election.”
The document advises, “Candidates exceeding the permissible time limit will be subject to enforcement. Failure to comply with these guidelines and regulations may result in sign removal and other enforcement action.”
In a statement sent to AZ Free News, a supporter of conservative school board candidates Gretchen Jacobs, Jeanne Beasley and Drew Hassler laid out the chain of events:
“On 7/23, the supporter was informed that the City removed the Sharkey/Pittinsky/Lewis school board candidate sign.”
“On 7/24, I then filed a second complaint for another sign. Richie from the City of Scottsdale went to the sign location, we spoke, and he confirmed in text that the city would contact the candidates and give them 24 hours to remove the signs.”
“Throughout the day, additional complaints were filed as more Sharkey/Pittinsky/Lewis signs were discovered by the community … but now the City is responding to complaints to deny them, claiming that school board signs cannot be removed, even though they are admittedly out early. It appears that management is telling Code Enforcement Officers that they can only enforce some rules (safe zones, yes; but timing, no).”
“On 7/25, Code Enforcement Officer Richie confirmed in text to me that the signs are out early, but that he will not be allowed to remove the signs as he had stated that he would.”
In an email provided to AZ Free News from Melanie Schwandt, an Administrative Secretary with the City of Scottsdale, our source was given an answer from the City’s Legal Department which had determined “the School Board signs could not be removed even prior to the 71 day mark.”
Arizona Women of Action posted to X regarding the signage violations in Scottsdale, writing, “Some candidates are breaking city codes & getting away with it. This creates an unfair advantage for those candidates who do not mind taking the risk of getting their names out there before the legal date for signage.”
Some candidates are breaking city codes & getting away with it. This creates an unfair advantage for those candidates who do not mind taking the risk of getting their names out there before the legal date for signage.
— Arizona Women of Action (@azwomenofaction) July 27, 2024
Scottsdale Unites for Educational Integrity, reporting the same violations, wrote, “The @scottsdaleazgov confirmed that school board candidate signs may not be displayed until Aug 26th … but after democrat candidates installed signs more than 1 month early, the City has decided they will do …. exactly nothing.”
— Scottsdale Unites for Educational Integrity (@ScottsdaleUnite) July 26, 2024
AZ Free News has reached out to ‘Protect SUSD,’ the campaign for Sharkey/Pittinsky/Lewis, North Scottsdale Democrats (NorScoDems.org), as well as the Scottsdale Code Enforcement, Legal and Communications Departments for comment. We received no responses by time of publication.
The state’s Democratic leaders, Governor Katie Hobbs and Attorney General Kris Mayes, have been taking aggressive action to undo school choice in Arizona, even as the Auditor General has exposed another public school district for poor finances.
Earlier this month, Mayes launched an investigation into the usage of school choice funds to purchase supplementary materials. Mayes also submitted a letter to the Department of Education ordering parents to submit a curriculum for all requests for supplemental materials.
Meanwhile, over 40 school districts were determined to not be in compliance with audit reporting requirements for the 2023 fiscal year. The latest public school district to be reported on by the auditor general, Baboquivari Unified School District (BUSD), not only spent nearly $500,000 on out-of-state travel for trainings and conferences found to be “unnecessary and potentially wasteful” in under two years — it spent over $8,400 for its board to hold board meetings and retreats out of town at a casino.
The BUSD Board traveled to Desert Diamond Casino in Tucson — over 115 miles round trip — where they addressed agenda items that the auditor general determined weren’t preclusive to public attendance. The board held three special meetings and five weekend board retreats at this casino.
The auditor general noted that these meetings were potentially in violation of the state’s open meeting laws.
In its response to the audit, BUSD said that if it were to have meetings out of town again, such as in a casino, it would ensure the public could watch via livestream or other methods.
The auditor general also noted that BUSD potentially violated the state constitution’s gift clause requirement with its $500,000 travel expenses. The report cited a specific instance of several thousand spent on an individual involved with overseeing education on behalf of the tribal government, not employed by the district, to travel and attend an educator training course in Georgia: an expense the district couldn’t show it approved in advance.
A majority of the objectionable travel expenses, over $340,000, occurred when BUSD sent staff to an out-of-state professional development conference. That mass expense included the attendance of a “substantial” number of non-educators — including a custodian, IT staff, business office staff, and Board members — and a repeat trip for seven staff members.
The auditor general found that if BUSD had excluded non-educators from the conference, the district would have nearly halved its costs. Further, if BUSD had chosen to only send a handful of “key employees” capable of training the other staff members, the district could have saved 97 percent of its costs. What’s more, the conference had a virtual training option, which would have eliminated the large expense of travel costs to the district entirely.
During the audit, BUSD indicated to the auditor general that they wanted to send nearly all of its staff to the conference to “energize and motivate teachers and staff” in order to improve student attendance and achievement.
In the last reporting year (2022-23), BUSD had “significantly lower” student achievement than its peer districts and the statewide average. Only two percent of students passed state assessments in math (compared to 27 percent), six percent in English (compared to 33 percent), and three percent in science (compared to 23 percent).
In its response to the auditor general, BUSD said that its business office was aware and had questioned the excessive travel and training costs, but the superintendent at the time had dismissed their concerns.
According to the auditor general, there were other, more critical needs in which the district could have instead applied that excessive spending.
“[T]ravel expenditures did not always comply with State requirements and may not have provided intended benefits,” read the report. “In addition to travel costs exceeding State travel policies and spending limits, the District could have saved at least $389,000 that it could have used for other District priorities, such as increasing teacher pay, by limiting the number of District staff and Board members attending conferences.”
BUSD was found to have ignored spending limits for lodging, overpaid staff and Board members for meals, failed to document its record of payments to staff members for travel expenses, and failed to ensure preapproval of travel expenditures.
The excessive spending resulted in BUSD spending over double per student on administration than its peer districts on average. The auditor general also found BUSD had operated schools below capacity, which also contributed to the higher spending.
Since BUSD failed to maintain transportation records, per the report, the auditor general was unable to have a complete scope of review of the district’s school bus and fleet vehicle maintenance, inspection, and mileage documentation and procedures.
BUSD didn’t have documentation to support that it performed the required school bus preventive maintenance. The district also didn’t maintain the required records for fleet vehicles, nor could it show that it safeguarded and monitored fleet vehicles to prevent unauthorized use, theft, or damage.
Finally, the auditor general found that BUSD failed to comply with requirements to protect students and safeguard public monies and sensitive computerized data. BUSD lacked internal controls for conflicts of interest, payroll, and credit cards. This resulted in an increased risk for unauthorized purchases and fraud with public monies. BUSD also assigned too much access to its accounting system and failed to secure its IT equipment.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
On Friday, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AZFEC) filed a lawsuit against the State of Arizona, Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, and the ‘Make Elections Fair’ political committee. The group is challenging the initiative to place open primaries, ranked choice voting, and the elimination of public funding in partisan elections on the November ballot as a single item. The AZFEC, along with three co-plaintiffs, is contesting the constitutionality of The Make Elections Fair Arizona Act, on the basis that it violates the Arizona Constitution’s “Separate Amendment Rule,” which prohibits multiple constitutional amendments from being combined into a single ballot measure.
In a press release, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club explained, “If placed on the ballot and approved by voters, the Make Elections Fair Arizona Act would radically change how Arizonans select and approve candidates for public office, essentially copying the California voting system.”
Broken down under the premise of the “Separate Amendment Rule,” the Make Elections Fair Arizona Act constitutes twelve separate amendments according to the AZFEC. The act touches three disparate areas of Arizona election law, directly amends four different sections of the Arizona Constitution, and adds an entirely new section, whole cloth.
🚨 BREAKING: We just filed a lawsuit against the Make Elections Fair Arizona Act (which would essentially copy the California voting system) because it contains multiple separate constitutional amendments in violation of the Arizona Constitution. 🧵https://t.co/SZdu3h3aRV
— Arizona Free Enterprise Club (@azfec) July 26, 2024
Scot Mussi, President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club said in the release, “In their rush to undermine the will of Arizona voters for future elections, the special interests that drafted this measure ignored our laws and our Constitution. This egregious disregard for law and order exudes arrogance from these parties and should disqualify their measure from the November ballot.”
In the text of AZFEC’s complaint, attorneys for the organization cited, “Article XXI, Section 1 of the Arizona Constitution, which states that “[i]f more than one proposed amendment is submitted at any election, the proposed amendments shall be submitted in such a manner that the electors may vote for or against such proposed amendments separately.” They added that, in past precedence, the Arizona Supreme Court has upheld that “the purpose of the single-subject rule is to eliminate the ‘pernicious practice of “log-rolling,'” whereby voters are ‘forced, in order to secure the enactment of the proposition which [they] consider[] the most important, to vote for others of which [they] disapprove[],’” the process of packaging a proposition the voters might support with others they may not.
As detailed in the release, even the drafter’s website readily acknowledged that the initiative included multiple amendments in the no longer online section: “Initiative Language” by presenting the amendments in four distinct categories in a format showing each issue as a “Current Problem” and a solution labeled “MAKE IT FAIR.”
ARIZONA FREE ENTERPRISE CLUB V. STATE OF ARIZONA and ADRIAN FONTES §104 ( About Page, MAKE ELECTIONS FAIR ARIZONA, https://www.makeelectionsfairaz.com/about (last visited July 24, 2024).ARIZONA FREE ENTERPRISE CLUB V. STATE OF ARIZONA and ADRIAN FONTES §104 ( About Page, MAKE ELECTIONS FAIR ARIZONA, https://www.makeelectionsfairaz.com/about (last visited July 24, 2024).
In the complaint, the plaintiffs appeal for relief in the form of a declaration from the court that the initiative is in violation of the Arizona State Constitution, and a request for a mandamus order to compel Secretary of State Adrian Fontes to carry out his “nondiscretionary duty to comply with the Separate Amendment Rule set forth in Article XXI, Section 1 of the Arizona Constitution.”
As reported by the Arizona Mirror, the Make Elections Fair Arizona Act has already been the subject of a legal battle between the Make Elections Fair Arizona political action committee and Arizona Legislative leaders, House Speaker Ben Toma and Senate President Warren Petersen, regarding the descriptive language of the initiative on the November 2024 ballot.
The description in question reads, in part, that the proposition, “would amend the Arizona Constitution to: 1. Allow for the use of voter rankings at all elections held in this state to determine which candidate received the highest number of legal votes,” continuing to break down the revisions to the primary election and general election procedures.
Attorneys for the PAC complain in the lawsuit, “By beginning with the changes the Initiative permits regarding the use of voter rankings, the adopted analysis improperly amplifies those permitted changes and improperly understates the Initiative’s required changes to the primary-election procedures.” They suggest that this is misleading.
Two Arizona legislators are expressing concern over a recent closure of a Maricopa County shooting complex.
Earlier this month, State Representatives Quang Nguyen and Selina Bliss wrote a letter to Maricopa County Sheriff Russ Skinner to “express concerns regarding the Joe Foss Shooting Complex.” They stated that it was their understanding that this complex was closed to the public on June 30, 2024, and they “strongly urge[d] the Sheriff “to reopen the shooting range to the public as soon as possible.”
The legislators shared that “According to the Maricopa County Parks and Recreation, the reason for this closure was to allow for more officers and deputies to be able to learn, qualify, and requalify with firearms and reduce the wait time for such training.”
“The Joe Foss Shooting Complex has been an important resource in Arizona for many years, gaining many consistent, loyal members,” wrote the lawmakers. “Many civilians, most being long-time members of the JFSC community, are frustrated with their favorite shooting range closing.”
They added, “With this closure, we have heard concerns regarding the places to which people will start taking their shooting business – some say that those once-loyal members of the Joe Foss Shooting Complex will start shooting in the desert instead. Keeping the Joe Foss Shooting Complex open to the public would eliminate that concern and avoid other unanticipated problems or unintended consequences.”
The Maricopa County Parks and Recreation posted an update to the situation on July 15, saying, “We appreciate the valuable feedback from residents concerned about the closing of the Joe Foss Shooting Complex at Buckeye Hills Regional Park. As a result, Maricopa County Parks and Recreation will conduct further analysis of the site’s condition and use and reevaluate whether there may be opportunities to provide public shooting again going forward. Site analysis will be done by an independent firm with specialty in range repair and mitigation. No decision about future activities at Joe Foss will be made until after their report is complete and repairs are finished. The range will remain closed during that time.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
One of Arizona’s top prosecutors acquired a high-profile endorsement for her campaign as the date for the primary election nears.
Earlier this week, Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell, a Republican, announced the endorsement of former Arizona Diamondbacks pitching superstar Randy Johnson.
In his endorsement, Johnson said, “Proud to endorse Rachel Mitchell for Maricopa County Attorney here in Arizona. She has shown that she is tough on crime. We need prosecuting attorneys like her in our state, in our cities and in our towns protecting our neighborhoods and hard-working citizens. She has my full endorsement.”
I am honored and thrilled to receive the endorsement of @Dbacks legend and Hall of Fame pitcher, Randy Johnson. Randy has seen firsthand the changes in Seattle from the time he pitched there – changes that come when criminals are not held accountable. He won’t see those changes… pic.twitter.com/pTfEZ8m68W
— Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell (@Rachel1Mitchell) July 24, 2024
Mitchell responded, “I am honored and thrilled to receive the endorsement of Dbacks legend and Hall of Fame pitcher, Randy Johnson. Randy has seen firsthand the changes in Seattle from the time he pitched there – changes that come when criminals are not held accountable. He won’t see those changes here.”
The county prosecutor added, “As Maricopa Attorney, I am dedicated to enforcing the law and holding criminals accountable. I will work relentlessly to protect our neighborhoods and ensure justice for every resident.”
Mitchell is competing for the Republican nomination for Maricopa County Attorney in the upcoming July 30 primary. She is opposed by fellow Republican Gina Godbehere. The winner of this contest will face off against Tamika Wooten, who is unopposed in the Democrat primary.
Throughout the lead-up to the primary election this year, Mitchell has rolled out a number of endorsements for her campaign, including from the Scottsdale Police Sergeant and Lieutenants Association, the Arizona Police Association, the Tempe Officers Association, the Arizona State Troopers Association, the Chandler Law Enforcement Association, the Phoenix Police Sergeants and Lieutenants Association, the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Arizona, and many other elected officials from around the state.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
A powerful Arizona organization is attempting to coax the state’s once-invincible champion for school choice into fighting back against one of its most fierce opponents.
Last week, John Thorpe, a Staff Attorney with the Goldwater Institute, sent a letter to Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne, over his office’s continued capitulation to Attorney General Kris Mayes over the interpretation of certain laws pertaining to the Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program.
The letter from the Goldwater Institute sought “to bring some clarity to the issues of (1) whether the use of ESA funds for ‘supplementary expenses’ requires an explicitly documented ‘nexus’ to a curriculum approved by the Department of Education, and (2) whether ESA funds are subject to the AG’s authority under [state statutes].”
This communication addressed an earlier email from Arizona Department of Education ESA Executive Director, John Ward, to parents within the program, informing them about a letter he had received from Mayes’ Solicitor General. According to Ward, that letter “stated that some ESA program practices are inconsistent with State law and result in payment of ESA funds without authorization of law, [and that] the Solicitor General’s Office has directed the ESA program to address the issues it identified.”
The Attorney General’s Office cited two Arizona statutes to bolster its argument that “the Arizona Department of Education has approved certain supplemental items and textbooks without requiring curricula, which may result in ‘illegal payment of public monies.’” Ward told parents that “ADE has no choice but to comply with the Solicitor General’s determination,” forcing families to “submit a curriculum with all supplemental materials requested or purchased” – something that he even noted was a practice “in place since before the current ADE administration.”
Horne’s acceptance of Mayes’ interpretation of the law was surprising to many members of the public, being that his office has been at odds with the Attorney General’s Office on almost every issue related to this program. Previously, Horne issued several statements expressing his unabashed opposition to the Democrat Attorney General’s persistent attacks on the ESA program and vowing to match her office step for step in defense of parents.
In Thorpe’s letter, he argues that “the law does not condition families’ rights to buy supplemental materials on an explicitly documented ‘curriculum nexus,’” and that “Arizona families’ ESA dollars are not ‘public monies.’”
Thorpe concluded his letter to the state’s schools chief, writing, “The AG’s power to investigate misuse of public monies does not give her the authority to prevent your office from allowing Arizona families to use their ESA funds for statutorily permitted uses. Nor does the law require you, or those families, to justify every textbook or ‘supplementary expenditure’ with a Department-approved curriculum nexus or documentation from a private school.”
On the same day of the Goldwater letter, Ward sent another email to ESA families in response to questions of his department “to provide additional guidance on what is required to use Empowerment Scholarships to purchase supplemental materials” – perhaps signaling that Horne and the Arizona Department of Education would not be backing down from its surrender to Mayes. Ward stated that “ADE would like to provide you with an updated template of Parent-Prepared Curriculum that you can use to submit with your requests for supplemental materials.”
One of the state’s most ardent and effective advocates of the ESA program, Christine Accurso, linked to the Goldwater letter on her social media platform, adding her own commentary about how parents should react to the decision from the Arizona Department of Education on these supplemental materials for their ESA accounts. She said, “ESA parents should have absolutely no fear with submitting orders (for direct purchase or for reimbursement) that includes items that are obvious supplemental educational materials. If an order gets rejected, then email asking them to approve it. If you get an email or communication about your order that says it is the ‘department’s final administrative decision’ then you can go to the State Board of Education and file an appeal. However, you must have proof that the department has given its ‘final administrative decision’ before submitting an appeal to the SBE.”
The Goldwater Institute’s public foray into this controversial action from the Republican Superintendent’s Office follows a letter that was previously sent to Horne from Arizona House Speaker Ben Toma, a fellow Republican. In his letter, Toma wrote, “I understand that you may have no choice but to cooperate with the Attorney General’s politically-motivated investigation. However, ADE is best situated to determine how to implement its policies in a way that fulfills legislative intent but does not burden parents with unnecessary bureaucratic requirements.”
Toma added, “As you implement your Department’s policies, I urge you to scrutinize Attorney General Mayes’ unsolicited legal advice expressed in her July 1, 2024, letter, consider how her interpretation of Arizona statutes would impact parents throughout the state, and reject her interpretation of the law that would lead to absurd results.”
In a blog post for the Goldwater Institute, Matt Beienburg referenced Toma’s letter, stating, “As noted by Arizona Speaker of the House Ben Toma, the unprecedented intrusion and second-guessing by the AG’s office into ADE’s administration of the ESA program is just the office’s latest attempt to advance a novel legal theory in order to hijack the legislative deliberations and decisions of state lawmakers. Indeed, just days before firing off its attack against ADE for its application of state statute, the AG’s office was forced to concede and drop its efforts to override the provisions of the recent bipartisan state budget agreement. The AG’s demands against the ESA program should similarly be rejected by the state department of education, the state board of education, and the judicial system of Arizona.”
A few days removed from the Goldwater Institute letter, the Arizona Department of Education sent another email to ESA parents, informing them of a virtual meeting with Horne, Ward, and others from the department to “provide account holders with an opportunity to have their questions answered regarding the new curricula requirements for supplemental materials.” However, families will not be able to ask their questions live and unfiltered. Instead, as per the electronic notice, “the format for the virtual meeting will be the Department of Education reading and answering questions that have been submitted to it by ESA Holders.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
