On Wednesday, the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) unveiled a new program using off-duty cops to supplement the shortage of safety officers on campus.
Under this new program, ADE filled its school resource officer (SRO) force from 190 to 301 positions — despite the statewide officer shortage. Superintendent Horne said in Wednesday’s press conference announcing the new program that an increase to SROs was one of his main priorities.
Horne said that the state’s police officer shortage initially posed a problem to the SRO increase. That meant that the fully-funded SRO positions had no officers to fill them. To work around this issue, Horne explained that the ADE contracted with Off Duty Management (ODM), which enables law enforcement to pick up off-duty shifts.
Horne credited Mike Kurtenbach, head of ADE’s school safety division and former Phoenix Police Department assistant chief, for the idea. Horne noted that their arrangement with ODM ensures full coverage at schools.
“We don’t involve partial coverage. The nightmare is that some maniac walks into a school and kills 20 kids — this has happened in other states and could happen here — and there’s no one there to protect the kids,” said Horne.
ODM President Bryan Manley thanked ADE for engaging in an “innovative” approach, the first of its kind in the state. ODM traditionally works security for businesses or venues, such as movie theaters.
Traditionally, SROs are fully-dedicated officers to a school that receive a minimum of 40 hours of training to work in schools. These ODM-deployed officers will be armed off-duty officers that receive a foundational 8 hours of specialized training from ADE for working in schools, on top of the 650 hours minimum of basic training to work in a police department, as well as field and on-the-job training.
Horne noted that the city of Phoenix has declined to participate in the SRO arrangement. Phoenix police force shrank last week to 2,561, according to Kurtenbach. As such, law enforcement from surrounding areas like Peoria will have ODM-deployed officers for Phoenix-area schools.
In response to reporter queries about parental concerns of increased arrests or intimidation of students, Horne said that the officers would provide order and a feeling of security — not fear. The superintendent said that those upset that some students may be arrested on campus were perpetuating the idea that “it’s okay to break the law without consequence.”
“This will allow us to provide a safe environment for more of our schools,” said Horne. “People should not be afraid of the police officers. The police officers are there to protect us. Without the police officers, we would have no civilization.”
Horne paraphrased 17th-century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes to supplement his claim, noting that civilized societies have a healthy and appreciative relationship with their law enforcement.
“Life becomes ‘solitary, nasty, brutish, and short’ if we don’t have police officers to protect civilization. It’s a very bad attitude to have a negative attitude toward police officers,” said Horne.
Recent student shooting threats have concerned students who have brought guns to campuses at Bostrom High School, Linda Abril Educational Academy, Maryvale High School, and North High School (Phoenix Union High School District); Kyrene de la Estrella Elementary School (Kyrene School District); and Desert Ridge High School (Gilbert Public Schools).
John Croteau, Dysart Unified School District superintendent, expressed gratitude for the ADE’s “creative” expansion of SROs.
“Safety is one of the most important things, if not the most important thing we can provide in education,” said Croteau. “We know that our students won’t learn if our students don’t feel safe, and that goes for the employees and staff [as well].”
Troy Bales, Paradise Valley Unified School District superintendent, added that he looked forward to the further expansion of the SRO presence on campus through the new program.
Watch the full press conference here:
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ-08) announced Tuesday that she won’t be seeking re-election in 2024.
In a press release, Lesko cited family as her main reason for retiring from the job.
“I want to spend more time with my husband, my 94-year-old mother, my three children, and my five grandchildren,” said Lesko. “Spending, on average, three weeks out of every month away from my family and traveling back and forth to Washington, D.C. almost every weekend is difficult.”
Lesko also cited the increased difficulty of passing legislation, declaring the nation’s capital to be broken.
Lesko assumed office in 2018, succeeding the retired former Rep. Trent Franks in a special election. Of the 102 bills she introduced, two became law.
One was HR 6400, which directed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to submit to the congressional homeland security and tax committees a threat and operational analysis of U.S. air, land, and sea ports of entry.
The other law was HR 6016, naming a U.S. Postal Service facility in Surprise as the “Marc Lee Memorial Post Office Building.”
The Heritage Foundation, one of the biggest conservative activist organizations, rates Lesko at a 100 percent conservative voting record. Lesko is a member of the House Freedom Caucus.
Lesko will serve through the end of her term in 2025.
As one of her recent major acts in Congress, Lesko has backed Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH-04) in the contentious House Speaker race. Jordan failed a second time to receive enough votes for the speakership on Wednesday.
22 voted against Jordan: Reps. Don Bacon (NE), Vern Buchanan (FL), Ken Buck (CO), Lori Chavez-Ramer (OR), Anthony D’Esposito (NY), Mario Diaz-Balart (FL), Jake Ellzy (FL), Drew Ferguson (GA), Andrew Garbarino (NY), Carlos Gimenez (FL), Tony Gonzales (TX), Kay Granger (TX), John James (MI), Mike Kelly (PA), Jennifer Kiggans (VA), Nick LaLota (NY), Michael Lawler (NY), Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA), John Rutherford (FL), Michael Simpson (ID), Pete Stauber (MN), and Steve Womack (AR).
All Democrats voted for their minority leader, New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries.
I voted for @Jim_jordan yesterday in the GOP conference and plan to vote for him next week if Jim decides to take the vote to the House floor. https://t.co/xazOa9pSnY
Several hours after Lesko issued her announcement, Republican attorney general candidate Abe Hamadeh announced his candidacy to replace Lesko. Hamadeh cited former President and 2024 presidential candidate Donald Trump as his main reason for running.
“President Trump is under attack,” said Hamadeh. “He needs back up — and I’m ready to help him Make America Great Again.”
Our country is in desperate need of courageous fighters, and that’s why I’m proud to announce I’m running for Congress in Arizona’s 8th District.
Gov. Katie Hobbs announced Tuesday that Arizona will participate in the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) free tax filing pilot program.
Under the IRS Direct File Pilot Program, certain Arizonans may file their state and federal returns directly to the IRS for free. While the program would come at no direct cost to those eligible, taxpayers ultimately subsidize this additional service.
In a press release, Hobbs said that the program would make filing taxes “convenient and easy.” Although Hobbs said that taxpayers could file both their state and federal tax returns through the pilot program, the IRS noted that its program would not prepare state returns but would instead guide taxpayers to a state-supported tool to file a stand-alone state tax return.
Today, I am putting money back into taxpayers' pockets by announcing a new & easy way to file taxes for free.
Starting in 2024, Arizonans can file their state & federal returns in one seamless experience.
It’s unclear which Arizona taxpayers may participate: the IRS disclosed that it hasn’t finalized its determinations of who would qualify. Expected, but not finalized, eligibility includes: W-2 wage income, Social Security and railroad retirement income, unemployment compensation, interest of $1,500 or less, Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, Credit for Other Dependents, standard deduction, student loan interest, and educator expenses.
IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel promised to reporters in a call on Tuesday that this program wouldn’t replace popular private tax preparation companies like H&R Block or Intuit’s TurboTax.
“I can’t stress enough that Direct File, if pursued further after the pilot, would be just another choice taxpayers have to help them prepare their tax returns,” said Werfel.
Intuit spokesman Derrick Plummer claimed in a statement to PBS that the direct file program would cost billions of dollars.
“An IRS direct-to-e-file system is redundant and will not be free — not free to build, not free to operate, and not free for taxpayers,” said Plummer.
California, Massachusetts, and New York are the three other states that signed onto the pilot program for the 2024 filing season. The IRS noted that taxpayers in states without an income tax may be eligible to participate as well: Alaska, Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming.
The direct file pilot doesn’t replace another existing free direct filing service by the IRS, Free File Program (FFP): a public-private partnership between the IRS and Free File, Inc., or Free File Alliance (FFA), a consortium of tax preparation and filing software industry companies. Those with an income of $73,000 or less qualify for a free federal tax return under that existing program.
The FFP was created in 2002 with the agreement that the IRS wouldn’t create its own free tax-filing software. However, the IRS removed that provision from the FFP memorandum in late 2019 following ProPublica investigative reporting that then-members of the FFA, namely Intuit and H&R Block (who together served 70 percent of FFA users), were charging FFP-eligible taxpayers for tax return services. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) in a follow-up audit found that over 14 million FFP-eligible taxpayers ended up paying for a commercial service for tax returns.
H&R Block departed the FFP in 2020, then Intuit in 2021. Intuit settled last year for $141 million over the claims.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found last year that the FFP has been vastly underutilized by eligible taxpayers, and that the IRS faced risks by relying on the private industry to provide free tax filing. Of the 71 percent of taxpayers eligible for FFP, only about three percent participated in 2020. The GAO recommended the IRS develop other free tax e-filing options.
In 2020, TIGTA reported that not many taxpayers used the FFP because it was rife with “complexity and insufficient oversight.”
The IRS promised to publicly share the results of the direct file pilot program once completed. More information on the program may be discovered here.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Border Patrol agents are facing increasing dangers as a result of empowered cartels and smugglers.
Last week, the Vice President of the National Border Patrol Council, Art Del Cueto, posted a picture of online messages that contained threats and concerning solicitations about personal information for agents and members of their families.
Del Cueto said, “Unbelievable! #heroesingreen have to get this information through media because the administration and agency doesn’t put anything out to the #bootsontheground…”
The longtime border official added a number of hashtags to stress his point, including “#wherestheintel,” “#nocommunication,” “#theyreallydontcare,” “#excusescoming,” “#stayvigilant,” “#staystrapped.”
The messages shared by Del Cueto include the following:
“We will pay for any addresses of border patrol agents!!”
“$200 your way if you get me a border patrol agent’s address”
“$1k if you get me they mommas address”
“We offer $$$ for information on BP agents”
“Top dollar on good info”
“I’ll post us torturing any bp agent u send”
Ali Bradley, a National Correspondent for NewsNation, shared additional insight from conversations with Border Patrol agents, stating that “the agency says the messages also show the intent to post the torture of BPAs on social media.”
NEW: “We will pay for any addresses of border patrol agents!!”@CBP sends out internal alert to agents after intercepting messages seeking the home addresses of agents and their families with an intent to do harm— The text message obtained by CBP states, “$200 your way if you… pic.twitter.com/98PA8pYdWv
She added, “Agents I talk to are extremely concerned for their safety. While assaults on agents are down from last year, assaults involving firearms are up slightly.”
Last month, a Border Patrol agent in Texas was assaulted by a suspected smuggler, according to reports. Per pictures provided to the media at the time, the agent appeared to have blood on his face and uniform. In its account of the incident, Fox News wrote, “Migrants and smugglers are increasingly assaulting and confronting U.S. border personnel as the dangerous escalations of violence increase along the border.”
In addition to the increasing dangers and threats against them, Border Patrol agents are finding themselves completely overwhelmed due to the onslaught of migrants and drugs pouring across the U.S.-Mexico boundary lines, which has been caused by the policies of the Biden administration. Over the course of the three-year Biden-Harris administration, apprehensions of illegal aliens and drugs have continued to rise to historic levels, with no end seemingly in sight. This issue has led to growing fears of potential terror in the homeland – especially after the Hamas attack in Israel a couple weeks ago and the escalating number of terrorist suspects who have been encountered at the border (in addition to the sheer number of ‘gotaways’ escaping detection from law enforcement).
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) introduced legislation to expand remote work for federal employees.
Sinema rolled out the bill, the Telework Reform Act of 2023, earlier this month alongside Sen. James Lankford (R-OK). In a press release, Sinema said that the bill would especially improve work opportunities for military families.
“We’re cutting costs and expanding career opportunities by improving federal telework for Arizonans and military spouses who rely on telework to stay employed when moving due to military orders,” said Sinema.
Lankford stated that remote and telework expansion would help break up the Washington, D.C. centralization and diversify the federal workforce.
“By re-thinking how the government uses remote work, we are encouraging federal agencies to hire in diverse communities across the country; instead of requiring our workforce to be centralized in Washington, DC,” said Lankford.
The bill specifically requires all executive agency leadership to produce a report on how their agencies could coordinate with the Secretary of Defense to recruit military spouses for remote work positions. The legislation also contains a provision enabling an executive agency to noncompetitively appoint veterans, military and law enforcement spouses, and high-performing employees to remote work positions.
Other aspects of the annual report would identify opportunities and benefits to remote work and telework expansion, including cost savings and productivity boosts, as well as the technology necessary to accomplish it.
Federal guidance distinguishes teleworkers and remote workers based on their main work site, or “duty station.” A federal agency’s home office serves as the duty station for teleworkers, meaning they have some mandatory in-person office attendance in addition to their remote work. A remote worker’s duty station is their home.
The bill would require federal agencies to determine which jobs would be accomplished feasibly through remote work, and perform annual reviews to determine whether remote work remains feasible or necessary for those jobs.
It would also require teleworkers to report at least twice per pay period to their agency’s home office.
In July, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that over 500 million square feet of federal government office space has been greatly underutilized. The GAO found that 17 out of a sample of 24 agencies (constituting 21.5 million square feet of office space) had only achieved an average capacity of 25 percent or less over a three-month review.
According to the GAO, federal agencies spend an average of $7 billion annually: $2 billion on maintaining and operating office space, and $5 billion to lease the buildings.
The last Office of Personnel Management (OPM) report analyzing the status of federal employee telework, issued last December, reported that 47 percent of federal employees participated in routine or situational telework in the 2021 fiscal year.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
An environmental watchdog organization is suing the Biden Administration to increase regulatory oversight of Arizona and other states.
Earlier this month, the Sierra Club filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Michael S. Regan, “has failed to perform his nondiscretionary duty under the Clean Air Act to issue a finding of failure by thirteen states…to submit complete revised nonattainment area state implementation plans and publish notice of that action in the Federal Register no later than six months after the January 1, 2023 deadline by which each of these states was required to submit a nonattainment SIP for the 2015 primary ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).”
The states targeted in the complaint by the Sierra Club were Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin.”
Sari Amiel, an Associate Attorney for the Sierra Club, released the following statement in conjunction with the legal filing: “More than 100 million people reside in counties receiving failing grades for smog pollution, with Black, Hispanic, and Asian Americans disproportionately exposed to all forms of air pollution. States’ refusal to comply with common-sense air pollution standards is already harmful, but EPA’s failure to hold them accountable adds insult to injury. EPA must fulfill its obligations under the Clean Air Act and take swift action to protect communities from the harmful effects of smog pollution.”
Scot Mussi, the President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, also weighed in on the challenge, telling AZ Free News, “This lawsuit is an attempt by the Sierra Club to force Arizona to adopt their radical environmental agenda. They know that ozone levels in Maricopa County are lower today than twenty years ago and that most of the ozone in the region is either naturally occurring or coming from China. But since they couldn’t convince us to ban gas cars and gas stoves, they hope the EPA or a friendly liberal judge will do it for them.”
The 2015 rule has been the focus of many lawsuits since it was initiated under the Obama-Biden Administration. In October 2015, then-Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich led a small coalition of states (Arkansas, the Environmental Department on behalf of New Mexico, North Dakota, and Oklahoma) in filing a lawsuit to challenge the Final Rule. At the time, Brnovich said, “We all want clean air, however, reducing the ozone standards to 70 parts per billion will be nearly impossible for Arizona to attain. The new Rule completely ignores Congress’ intent that the EPA set ozone levels for the states that are actually attainable. The financial stakes for this state are enormous if we are unable to comply and I am going to do everything within my power as attorney general to protect Arizona.”
During the Trump Administration, the EPA was not empowered to raise the standards set under the Obama-Biden Administration. After the decision in 2020, then-EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler explained the reasoning, saying, “The EPA under the Trump Administration has continued America’s leadership in clean air, lowering our particulate matter levels to well below those of many of our global competitors. Maintaining these important standards will ensure Americans can continue to breathe some of the cleanest air on the planet.”
A change in administrations, however, had drastic consequences for this policy. President Joe Biden signed an executive order in 2021, ordering the environmental agency to review a number of actions initiated under the previous administration, including the NAAQS Decision in 2020. Not long after the executive order was signed, the EPA announced its intent to “reconsider the December 2020 decision because available scientific evidence and technical information indicate that the current standards may not be adequate to protect public health and welfare, as required by the Clean Air Act.” At the beginning of this year, the EPA released its proposed revision to the NAAQS, which increased standards from the Obama-Biden administration, prompting various reactions from a number of states around the country.
In March of this year, a group of Democrat attorneys general, led by the State of California, submitted a comment letter to the EPA, urging the Biden Administration to “adopt stringent standards under the Clean Air Act that protect public health against particulate matter pollution.” Attorney General Bonta stated, “High particulate matter pollution levels are a serious threat to public health, particularly for underserved and vulnerable populations. Today’s comment letter urges the EPA to set adequate standards to ensure that all Californians can breathe clean air. The adoption of stronger standards will aid all of California’s communities, but especially communities experiencing environmental injustices, that are disproportionately affected by air pollution. At the California Department of Justice, we will continue advocating for stronger pollution control measures for the wellbeing of all Californians.”
California was joined by the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia and the City of New York, in the letter.
On the other side of the political aisle, Republican attorneys general have pushed back this year against the EPA’s attempt to cement and expand the NAAQS. In March, Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron spearheaded a 19-state coalition with a letter to the EPA to oppose its updated rule. Cameron said, “As Americans face record-high inflation, the Biden Administration is pushing extreme policies that would harm the economies of energy states like Kentucky. The United States has some of the cleanest air in the industrialized world, and this regulation prioritizes President Biden’s radical climate agenda ahead of the livelihoods of hard-working Americans.”
Joining Kentucky on this letter to the EPA were the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
