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.
PHOENIX — This week, Governor Doug Ducey signed Senate Bill (SB) 1451, legislation which expands workers’ compensation for diseases presumed to be a result of Arizona’s firefighters and fire investigators’ job demands and requirements.
The bill strengthens the presumption that a firefighter’s cancer diagnosis is work related thereby ensuring that more firefighters are eligible for worker’s compensation and can spend more time focusing on their health and family and less time fighting with cities and insurance companies for their benefits.
This bill also protects female firefighters and fire investigators by adding breast cancer and ovarian cancer to the list of qualifying cancers to ensure that they have access to the same benefits and protections as their male co-workers.
Previously, to qualify for the presumption, a firefighter or peace officer must have passed a physical examination before employment that did not indicate evidence of cancer, been assigned to hazardous duty for at least five years, and documented with the department an exposure to a known carcinogen that is reasonably related to cancer. Firefighters were burdened with identifying exactly when and where they were exposed to a carcinogen that caused their cancer, which is why SB 1451 removes that specific requirement.
Wednesday, the House passed a bill requiring schools to have parents’ written consent before teaching Sex Education to students. Rather than having parents opt their children out of Sex Ed curriculum, this legislation requires schools to have parents opt in their children.
The bill passed along party lines, with only one Democratic representative abstaining their vote: State Representative Denise “Mitzi” Epstein (D-Tempe).
Summarily, the bill prohibits schools from providing Sex Ed to any students below the fifth grade – including education on AIDS and HIV. It would also require schools to make all Sex Ed curriculum available for parental review two weeks in advance, at minimum.
Under the bill, schools may or may not choose to implement a Sex Ed curriculum. If they do, the bill would simply require them to prioritize parental consent and communication, and those schools would have the option for state-level health or education officials to review the materials. It would also require that AIDS and HIV education be grade-level appropriate, promote abstinence, discourage drug use, and dispel myths of HIV transmission.
The legislation also requires that all committee meetings to develop, adopt, revise, or update Sex Ed courses be open to the public. Additionally, all materials must be made available and two public hearings must occur at least 60 days prior to any approval of materials.
Both Arizona House and Senate Democrats tweeted against the passage of the bill.
“This bill is a huge step back from the progress Arizona made in 2019 when we removed barriers for LGBTQ+ representation in schools. This bill makes all HIV/AIDS instruction opt-in, labeling this important education as taboo & only available via a permission slip,” wrote the Arizona Senate Democrats.
This bill is a huge step back from the progress Arizona made in 2019 when we removed barriers for LGBTQ+ representation in schools. This bill makes all HIV/AIDS instruction opt-in, labeling this important education as taboo & only available via permission slip
— Arizona Senate Democrats (@AZSenateDems) April 14, 2021
Neither the House or Senate GOP or the bill’s sponsor, State Senator Nancy Barto (R-Phoenix), published remarks on social media regarding the passage of this bill. Barto did tell reporters in an emailed statement that this served as a victory for parents’ rights.
“Parents should not have to worry about what schools are teaching their children about human sexuality,” stated Barto. “Too often parents learn after the fact that explicit or controversial materials were presented without their knowledge or consent.”
As AZ Free News reported previously, the Senate passed the bill early last month. Testimonies presented during committee hearings relayed a variety of issues. These included schools telling children that sex education classes are mandatory, refusing to share curriculum materials with parents, or circumventing parental notification on certain materials like “Genderbread.”
The legislation will now heads to Governor Doug Ducey. If signed into law as written, schools would have until December 15 of this year to comply.
The Arizona School Board Association condemned the bill’s passage as an effort to “undermine the authority of school boards. However, nothing in the bill prohibits school boards from approving curriculum. It merely sets a grade-level requirement and provides parents with an opportunity to exercise their authority over their own children.
ASBA opposes SB1456 as a tremendous overreach into the school board’s authority to establish curriculum it deems appropriate for the school community and urges Gov. Ducey to veto this bill. Read our full statement below. ⬇️⬇️⬇️ pic.twitter.com/VCOCNX90Fh
Corinne Murdock is a contributing reporter for AZ Free News. In her free time, she works on her books and podcasts. Follow her on Twitter, @CorinneMurdock or email tips to corinnejournalist@gmail.com.
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.
According to the latest polling of Arizona voters, a sweeping majority support strong voter ID requirements and cleaning up early vote-by-mail lists. A total of 550 voters were polled. 82 percent of them supported voter ID in general, with nearly 64 percent in support of requiring ID verification in order to vote by mail.
Although the majority of respondents in support of voter ID requirements were Republicans, a significant amount of Democratic respondents supported them as well. 42 percent of Democratic respondents supported ID requirements for vote-by-mail. Nearly 69 percent of Democratic respondents supported ID requirements for all who vote.
The poll results come as the Arizona state legislature considers bills addressing those very matters. SB1713 would require a form of voter ID for mail-in voting, such as a driver’s license number and signature. That bill has already passed the Senate, and is progressing through the House. SB1485 would clean up the early vote-by-mail lists; it was last retained on the House calendar after passage by the Senate.
The primary majority of respondents were 65 and older, but the second-largest class of respondents fell in the 18 to 34 category. A poll released by the Harvard Institute of Politics before the 2020 election assessed that a majority of 18 to 29-year-olds displayed Democratic leanings with their intent to vote for President Joe Biden.
Although a slight majority of respondents considered themselves Republicans when asked about how they were registered to vote, the greater majority classified themselves as “moderate” rather than conservative when asked what they would classify themselves. The greatest number of respondents either had attended college and not achieved their degree, or received their bachelor’s only. And, the greatest number of respondents were nearly split in their voting patterns, having either voted in all of the last four general elections or none of them.
60 percent of respondents hailed from Maricopa County. That particular county has made headlines for a number of election-related controversies. Several weeks ago, the Arizona Senate hired four companies to audit the county’s results from the 2020 election. The results of that audit are pending. Last week, Republican leaders reached their goal to cover the audit expenses.
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club and Heritage Action sponsored the survey.
In a press release shared with AZ Free News, Arizona Free Enterprise Club President Scot Mussi explained that the poll reflects that Arizona voters hold a positive view of stricter voting regulations despite opposing media coverage.
“During the past two weeks, the public has heard nothing but negative attacks from the media on the issue of election integrity,” said Mussi. “This poll clearly shows that most voters support reasonable laws that protect our election process, despite no organized campaign in support of these reforms.”
Corinne Murdock is a contributing reporter for AZ Free News. In her free time, she works on her books and podcasts. Follow her on Twitter, @CorinneMurdock or email tips to corinnejournalist@gmail.com.
Arizona has filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration the garbage left behind by individuals crossing the U.S. Mexico border illegally. The Attorney General’s Office says it is suing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for violating the National Environmental Policy Act.
The Attorney General’s Office (AGO) alleges that the immigration policies of the Biden administration are “destructive.” immigration policies. The AGO is asking the U.S. District Court in Arizona to void the decisions to stop border wall construction and the “Remain in Mexico” policy until the federal government complies with its obligations under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
In its complaint, the AGO argues that DHS and other federal officials did not provide environmental impact statements or environmental assessments when DHS abruptly halted ongoing border wall construction and also began permitting entry of additional migrants by ending the “Remain in Mexico” policy.
Biden, in one of his first official actions on January 20, 2021, ordered the halting of ongoing construction of miles of border wall, leaving what the AGO an area residents claim are “haphazard and unplanned gaps between physical barriers,” which they say encourage “widespread illegal migration.”
Ranchers are concerned as well about the abandoned machinery and fencing that has been standing idle and eventually metals will leach into the water table and cause health issues for grazing cattle.
