State Senator Victoria Steele (D-Tucson) treated legislators and constituents to poetry and music at the Arizona State Capitol on Wednesday. Steele felt compelled to do so after her fellow Tucson legislator, State Senator Vince Leach (R-Tucson), criticized Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson the day before for Jackson’s inability to define “woman” during her Supreme Court confirmation hearing. Steele considered Leach’s question to be “audacious” and in need of a response. Since it wasn’t feasible for Jackson to speak for herself, Steele stepped up to the plate.
With a giggle, Steele began to recite poet Maya Angelou’s poem, “Phenomenal Woman.” Then, she began to sing the 1971 hit “I Am Woman” by Helen Reddy, which she explained was offered “just in case there was any doubt” about her definition of a woman. Unlike the poem, Steele cut short her song to perform only the first verse and chorus.
“And that, my friend, is a woman,” concluded Steele.
According to the science, Steele’s remarks didn’t answer the question. A woman is an adult female human. A female human is determined by the two XX sex chromosomes that arise at the moment of fertilization. For males, that’s the XY sex chromosomes. According to the greater scope of nature, females have the ability of bearing offspring and/or producing eggs in ovaries. In the case of humans, females produce eggs and have the ability to carry and bear children after reaching sexual maturity.
It appears that Steele prepared a whole day to respond to Leach’s remarks on Tuesday. Leach said it was “troubling” that someone like Jackson was appointed to the highest court in the land.
“What is to be questioned is a system which puts to the bench of the United States Supreme Court someone that can’t answer a simple question: what is a woman?” said Leach.
During a confirmation hearing, Jackson was unable to answer a question from Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) asking her to define the word “woman.” Jackson said she couldn’t answer because she wasn’t a biologist.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Arizona Secretary of State and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Katie Hobbs offered a more definitive stance on abortion limitations last week. In short — none. Hobbs rejected the notion that the law must determine at what point abortions should be restricted. Rather, Hobbs insisted that such a decision should be left between the mother and doctor.
When pressed by AZFamily Political Editor Dennis Welch on where she drew the line, Hobbs reiterated that the decision wasn’t up to her but to each individual. That could mean up until the point of birth. Hobbs later tweeted that the right to unfettered abortion access was a mark of equality for women in society.
“Women deserve action to abortion care. Abortion is health care,” said Hobbs. “Abortion is a personal decision between a woman and her family and doctor. That’s something that needs to be discussed in the medical exam room, not by politicians.”
Not only is the new abortion ban an extreme assault on Arizonans’ reproductive freedom, it takes us a giant step backwards in our decades long fight for equality. pic.twitter.com/0XAFgYcYTx
Hobbs called the latest law banning abortions after 15 weeks a danger to women. Her arguments reflected her exact sentiments from when Governor Doug Ducey signed the abortion ban into law. Hobbs declared that limiting abortion was depriving women of their constitutional freedom.
“Today marks a giant step backward in the fight for equality for women across Arizona and across the country,” said Hobbs. “With Governor Ducey’s signature, our elected leaders have chosen to turn their backs on the overwhelming majority of Arizonans who support the constitutional right to choose. Make no mistake — stripping away women’s constitutional rights won’t stop women from seeking access to reproductive health care. But the passage of this misogynistic law clarifies the very real and dangerous consequences of electing leaders who are willing to throw away our rights and set us back a generation.”
Abortion up until birth would be consistent with Hobbs’ longstanding views on the subject of abortion. During her time as a state senator, Hobbs said that abortion didn’t equal infanticide and that “abortion” wasn’t a bad word.
According to Hobbs’ cumulative 2021 campaign finance report, she received hundreds from Planned Parenthood of Arizona leaders: $250 from lobbyist Jodi Liggett, $500 from president Bryan Howard, and $75 from their external affairs. Planned Parenthood of Arizona also endorsed Hobbs for her races in the state legislature and for secretary of state.
In a 2012 interview with Planned Parenthood for Arizona, Hobbs claimed that pregnancy was just as dangerous as abortion. She also advocated for the controversial curriculum of comprehensive sex education for K-12 schools.
If elected, Hobbs wouldn’t be the only official to oppose the law. The Democratic candidate for Maricopa County Attorney, Julie Gunnigle, pledged to not enforce Arizona’s ban on abortions after 15 weeks.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
For now, the residents and developers of a 20-story retirement community recently built in the heart of ASU’s flourishing entertainment district have silenced live music at a popular club, but the owners of Shady Park Tempe promise to appeal.
Mirabella at ASU is located across the street from Shady Park, a popular eatery – dance club where live music has been offered since 2015. But on April 13, a Maricopa County judge imposed several restrictions on the business, making it impossible for Shady Park to hold live music events, according to a company statement.
For its part, Shady Park sees an appeal of Judge Brad Astrowsky’s ruling as the only option to save the business after all these years.
“We remain hopeful that the court system will correct this injustice and that our appeal will allow us to once again host live music and provide a bit of joy and happiness to thousands of people every week,” the statement reads.
And owner Scott Price warns Shady Park will be forced to close down for good if Astrowsky’s ruling is upheld on appeal.
“This is because the revenue from shows is vital to our ability to pay for the other business operations,” Price said of the ruling, adding that “the power and influence of ASU was too much for us to overcome.”
Shady Park and other clubs in along East University Avenue have been in operation long before the Mirabella at ASU project broke ground. And there is no one who does not know that clubs and noise go hand in hand, particularly in a college community.
But ASU President Michael Crowe saw an opportunity to attract developers interested in taking advantage of ASU’s property tax exemption. Mirabella opened in December 2020 while several restaurants, clubs, theatres, and other “nightlife” businesses remained shuttered due to the economic effects of Gov. Doug Ducey’s various public health executive orders.
Once Shady Park reopened in May 2021, the folks at Mirabella complained about the noise. Price shutdown the live music while a canopy was constructed to help with the noise, but more complaints flooded in once live music started up again in September.
The lawsuit filed in October sought a preliminary injunction against Shady Park to prevent live music events which exceed Tempe’s “community standards” for noise. Then just before Astrowsky conducted a trial in February, Mirabella at ASU offered Shady Park “a large sum of money to close down and agree to let them take over our lease,” according to Shady Park.
The trial left many legal observers comparing the Mirabella residents to those who complain about noise after moving into a neighborhood that is in an airport’s well-established flight path. But the judge sided with the newcomers, ruling that residents made a substantial showing of harm caused by the Shady Park live concerts.
Astrowsky also faulted the efforts Shady Park took to address the noise complaints, saying there was “no credible evidence” that the canopy mitigated the noise.
“Shady Park never consulted an acoustical engineer or acoustic consultant,” the judge ruled. “Further, Shady Park did not perform any testing to determine how effective the canopy was at containing sound.”
Astrowsky was also not impressed with Shady Park’s arguments of the financial damage to the business if forced to turn down its music or construct an enclosure “to acoustically seal” the venue. The evidence presented about the impact was merely that of “speculative harm,” he ruled.
To rub salt into the wound, a post-ruling statement by Mirabella at ASU noted the “relief” Astrowsky brought to its residents and the surrounding community.
“We hope the court’s ruling results in peaceful coexistence moving forward and a celebration of a community that is inclusive and respectful of all,” the statement reads in part.
Shady Park says it has ceased all live music operations, “as the restrictions mandated make it impossible for us to hold live music events.” It could take a few weeks before an expedited appeal can be heard, leaving the company without vital revenue.
In the meantime, the ASU Foundation is benefiting richly from Mirabella at ASU, despite the impact to the local community and culture. It is a situation that is garnering scrutiny for other decisions by ASU, the Arizona Board of Regents, and President Crowe for using public tax-exempt property to benefit private businesses.
The Arizona Supreme Court recently ruled that a lawsuit filed by Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich against the Regents and ASU can move forward to trial. In that case, the attorney general contends the 16-story Omni Hotel Tempe built on tax-exempt public property violates the Arizona Constitution’s Gift Clause prohibition on providing public monies for the benefit of non-public enterprises.
A jury trial about the ASU – Omni deal could be held as early as Spring 2023.
How to interpret changes enacted in 2011 to Arizona’s development impact fee law will be heard by the Arizona Supreme Court, it was announced last week.
At issue is Arizona Revised Statute 9-463.05 which was amended in 2011 to redefine the circumstances under which a municipality can lawfully assess development impact fees. The Legislature noted its intent that courts would “narrowly” construe a town or city’s privilege to assess development fees.
Specifically, the 2011 version of ARS 9-463.05 prohibits impact development fees on new residents to pay for “a burden all taxpayers of a municipality should bear equally.”
In 2018, the Southern Arizona Home Builders Association (SAHBA) sued the Town of Marana after town officials spent more than $16 million in 2013 to acquire a water reclamation facility formally operated by Pima County. At the time, the facility only had capacity to serve current residents.
Marana then spent more than $17.5 million as part of a multi-phase Capital Improvement Project (CIP) to expand, upgrade, and modernize the facility, including compliance with environmental regulations. 20-year bonds were issued to cover the costs, with bond payments coming from impact fees charged on new homes and other development projects.
SAHBA’s lawsuit contends the expansion of the water reclamation facility and other upgrades undertaken as part of the project benefitted all existing residents as well as new residents. As a result, much of the impact fees violated ARS 9-463.05, the lawsuit argued.
The town, however, contended there was already sufficient water resources and wastewater treatment capacity to serve existing residents. It only acquired the Water Reclamation Facility and expanded the facility in order “to meet the needs” of future development, town attorney’s argued.
Marana also argued the project was developed “over years of careful consideration” by engineers, consultants, the public, and the Town Council. SAHBA was among the stakeholders involved in a planning process which started years earlier but took no action until 2018, according to town attorneys.
A Pima County judge and later the Arizona Court of Appeals sided with Marana’s position. Attorneys for the town later argued that review by the Arizona Supreme Court is “unwarranted” because the two lower court ruling were rightly decided.
“The trial court and the court of appeals evaluated whether the Town’s impact fee ordinances met the statutory requirements under A.R.S. § 9-463.05,” Marana’s response stated. “Both courts held the statutory requirements were met.”
But on April 5, the Arizona Supreme Court announced it will take up the case later this year, representing the first time the amended law will be subjected to review by the justices. The questions to be addressed during oral arguments are:
Did Marana violate A.R.S § 9-463.05 by making future development bear 100 percent of the cost of acquiring the Facility?
Did Marana violate the same statute by making future development bear nearly all of the cost of upgrading, modernizing, and improving the Facility?
Did Marana further violate the statute by failing to take into account what could or could not be included in development fees under that statute, and by failing to make any proportionate allocation of costs between existing and future development?
The Home Builders Association of Central Arizona, which is a trade association representing nearly 500 member companies engaged in residential construction and development, filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in support of SAHBA’s case.
The governing board of the Buckeye Elementary School District is coming under fire after the Arizona Auditor General discovered the superintendent of the 5,100-student district received about 100 percent more in compensation than the superintendents of Arizona’s three largest districts made on average.
Kristi Wilson became superintendent of the Buckeye District’s seven elementary schools in 2013. From July 2016 to December 2021, she received total compensation of more than $3.2 million under the terms of three employment agreements, according to a report released April 12 by Arizona Auditor General Lindsey Perry.
Of that, roughly $1.7 million is categorized as “additional compensation,” including nearly $570,000 which Perry’s auditors believe was not owed to Wilson.
The report also contends the District “omitted critical information” and records associated with two of the three employment agreements. The auditors expressed concern that there was a lack of transparency which “did not enable the public to monitor the District and superintendent’s performance.”
Any overpayment could constitute a violation of the Gift Clause in the Arizona Constitution, while violations of Arizona’s public records law can be prosecuted in some instances. As a result, the Auditor General’s findings have been referred to the Arizona Attorney General’s Office for investigation.
Data provided by the Auditor General shows 16 percent of the Buckeye District’s students come from families at or below the poverty rate. And nearly 70 percent of all students qualify for free or reduced lunches.
Furthermore, four of the seven schools had a D or F grade in Fiscal Year 2019. This has resulted in the Arizona Department of Education working with District officials to create an integrated action plan to improve student achievement.
Equally concerning, according to the audit report, is that District students performed below their peer group and students statewide on State assessments in the four fiscal years ending in Fiscal Year 2019. Yet at the same time, the salary and benefits package for Wilson worked out to 54 percent more in per pupil spending for executive administration than the statewide average.
In addition, the average teacher salary in the District was $44,536, about 15 percent below the average in Arizona.
Jane Hunt, the president of the District’s governing board, responded earlier this month to Perry. Hunt did not agree with several of the audit’s findings, but Perry’s staff contends the District’s response contains “certain inaccurate or misleading statements” about the situation.
In one instance, the District contended it had agreed to pay Wilson “a retirement credit” sufficient to cover all tax liability associated it with. Such an arrangement was expressly authorized by the Arizona State Retirement System through the use of post-tax pay, Hunt responded.
But that is not what happened, according to the audit report.
“The District’s assertion that the superintendent’s retirement credits were purchased using post-tax pay is wrong,” the report notes. “ Rather, per the superintendent’s election, the District deducted and sent to the ASRS the superintendent’s retirement credit payments through pre-tax deductions.”
This is an important distinction, Perry’s staff noted, because the District’s failure to correctly apply pre-tax status when calculating Wilson’s additional compensation led to a significant overpayment “to and on behalf of the superintendent.” And that could lead to legal problems for Wilson and the District Board.
The audit report notes that four of the District’s five current governing board members held such positions in April 2016 when the first of the employment agreements was approved to provide the superintendent with additional compensation.
Residents living in unincorporated communities across Arizona have a streamlined process for seeking to become a city or town, now that Gov. Doug Ducey has signed House Bill 2455 into law.
Under HB2455, the process will require those seeking incorporation to provide public notice at least six months prior to formally publishing a Petition to Incorporate. The requirements for making that notice are also detailed in the new legislation which Ducey signed April 6.
Another important change related to HB2455 is the ability to include “large areas of uninhabited, rural or farm land” into the incorporation plan under certain circumstances. But the biggest change is that those directly impacted by an incorporation plan can still object and be removed from the boundaries, but it is harder for them to outright kill the effort.
The change is intended to allow affected local qualified electors to vote on the proposed incorporation without having their interests overshadowed by others.
HB2455 was introduced by Rep. Neal Carter who represents parts of Gila and Pinal counties. He lives in San Tan Valley, where residents have tried three times in the last 12 years to incorporate the area which is home to nearly 97,000 people in northern Pinal County.
“Each time, the effort has failed without ever going to a ballot because of objections from outside interests,” Carter said after his bill was signed into law. “I believe people who live within a community should have a chance for their voices to be heard on matters of local governance. Any decision of whether a community becomes a town or city should be made by its residents, not by out of area interests.”
Carter was appointed last fall by the Pinal County Board of Supervisors to fill the remainder of Rep. Frank Pratt’s term following Pratt’s death. HB2455 was the first bill Carter introduced which the governor has signed into law.
HB2455 takes effect 90 days after the end of this legislative session.
