Arizona State University (ASU) student organizations advocating for issues like socialism, antiracism, and social justice are demanding the expulsion of Kyle Rittenhouse, effectively a campaign to cancel him. Rittenhouse had enrolled in an online ASU course in October; following his acquittal of all charges earlier this month, Rittenhouse announced that he hoped to enroll fully at ASU. Arizona Daily Independent listed all the groups involved in the campaign against Rittenhouse: Students for Socialism, Movimiento Estudiantil Chicanx de Aztlán (MEChA), Students for Justice in Palestine, and the Multicultural Solidarity Coalition (MSC).
The student organizations accused Rittenhouse of “white supremacy” and being a “racist murderer.” A jury determined otherwise. Several weeks ago, Rittenhouse was acquitted of multiple charges of homicide and reckless endangerment. Rittenhouse killed two of his assailants – Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber – and wounded a third, Gaige Grosskreutz. The trial revealed that the three men pursued and attacked Rittenhouse, who was in Kenosha to administer first aid and protect local businesses.
The student activist group petition to expel Rittenhouse also demanded that ASU reaffirm their support for the controversial multicultural center on campus by divesting funds from the ASU Police Department to fund the center and establishing an on-campus rape crisis hub called the Campus Assault Advocacy, Resources & Education (CAARE) Center.
Rosenbaum was a violent, convicted sex offender who served 10 years for multiple counts of child molestation. Huber was a convicted domestic abuser.
As AZ Free News reported, MSC leaders were behind the incident in September in which they demanded two of their peers leave a room on campus for being white males who were displaying “racist” messaging, such as a “Police Lives Matter” sticker. The room wasn’t designated officially as a multicultural room at the time of the incident.
Earlier this month, ASU determined that the three women involved – Sarra Tekola, Miriam “Mimi” Arraya, and Mastaani Qureshi – violated the university’s Code of Conduct.
Tekola and Arraya are prominent leaders within the Phoenix Metro chapter of Black Lives Matter (BLM). Tekola co-founded the chapter, and Arraya served as a policy minister. The pair’s BLM chapter has come to the defense of the three women for harassing and discriminating against their peers. They hosted a press conference earlier this month, and called for the public to contact ASU officials to drop the Code of Conduct charges against the three women.
The ASU student behind the petition is Taskina Bhuiyan, a sophomore studying microbiology. Bhuiyan’s petition characterized Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz as “victims.” As of press time, the petition has over 1,200 signatures.
According to Bhuiyan’s LinkedIn, she worked for Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA) from 2018 to 2020 – the controversial activist organization that followed Senator Kyrsten Sinema into the bathroom over her hesitation to support the infrastructure bill. ASU Police recommended misdemeanor charges be filed against the activists. Bhuiyan’s name also appears on the staff page for the Islamic Community Center of Tempe, a mosque.
Demands for Rittenhouse’s expulsion came after ASU College Republicans United (CRU) announced that they were fundraising for lawsuits Rittenhouse may file against the media, if any. Previously, ASU CRU raised $14,000 for Rittenhouse’s legal defense for his trial.
CRU denounced efforts to cancel Rittenhouse, insisting that ASU should suspend the organizations and individuals involved for engaging in a “harassment campaign.”
When a longtime resident sued the Town of Gilbert, its mayor, and six councilmembers last week, the public was provided an in-depth look at efforts taken to silence an opponent of a bond measure that tops out at more than one-half billion dollars.
Jim Torgeson, who owns Mesa Sign Shop, undertook an individual effort to post signs around town advocating against the town’s effort to raise $515 million via general obligation bonds to fund various capital improvements. Many of his signs were removed by town officials in the days leading up to voting after Torgeson was accused of violating state law.
Torgeson is asking Judge Jay Adlerman of the Maricopa County Superior Court to declare that town officials, acting individually, collectively, and on behalf of the municipality, violated Torgeson’s free speech rights, broke state law, and engaged in election misconduct to such an extent that the Nov. 2 bond election results must be annulled.
“To be sure, annulling an election is a radical remedy, but the law supports it here,” Torgeson’s Nov. 22 lawsuit states. “The bottom line is that the right to vote, the elective franchise, means little if the government is allowed to stamp out speech that advocates opposing views. It is the uniquely bad acts of the Town of Gilbert that has forced the need for the drastic judicial action that is requested.”
Due to questions about whether the bond election was tainted, Gilbert councilmembers Laurin Hendrix and Aimee Yentes voted against approving the canvass of votes. Until the matter can be fully litigated, Torgeson wants Adlerman to issue an injunction barring town employees, elected officials, and other agents from taking any steps to move toward having bonds issued.
Adlerman has scheduled a Dec. 8 hearing on Torgeson’s requests. As of press time, Gilbert officials had not filed a formal answer to the lawsuit.
Voting in Gilbert’s recent town election was by mail only. Officials reported that the bond question passed by only a 164-vote margin out of nearly 41,400 votes cast. (Another 917 voters took part in the town election but did not cast a vote on the bond issue.)
The lawsuit notes Mayor Brigette Peterson and four councilmembers—Scott Anderson, Yung Koprowski, Scott September, and Kathy Tilque—publicly supported a “Yes” vote. Koprowski and Tilque even served as co-chairs of a pro-Bond political action committee (PAC) called Yes for Safe and Efficient Gilbert Roads which raised nearly $55,000 despite no organized bond opposition.
Town Attorney Chris Payne is working with privately retained legal counsel to respond to Torgeson’s lawsuit. In the meantime, a statement issued last week on behalf of the Town of Gilbert takes issues with the legal and factual assertions contained in the lawsuit. Officials are “confident that the election results will be upheld,” according to the town’s statement.
Torgeson moved to Gilbert in 2008 and has been active in town affairs much of that time. He ran for council in November 2016, receiving 24.55 percent of the vote (he needed 26.01 percent to get a seat).
Peterson has been criticized by Torgeson in the past for her ethics and leadership of Gilbert, which is Arizona’s fifth-most populous municipality with nearly 250,000 residents. The town’s decision in June to seek voter approval of the bond question caught the attention of Torgeson, who supported a smaller, more manageable bond limit.
His anti-bond signs started going up around Gilbert in mid-September, just two weeks before ballots were scheduled to be mailed out. In place of his name, Torgeson printed “Private Citizen” on the signs next to his phone number, which he intended to have up at 100 high-visibility areas.
But town officials alleged Torgeson’s signs violated the law due to the absence of his name. As a result, 57 “non-conforming” signs were removed from town right of ways and later given back to Torgeson.
At the time, Torgeson’s attorney Timothy La Sota shot back at the town’s position, noting the Arizona Revised Statute about names on political signs cited by town officials only requires a name of a candidate “or campaign committee contact person.” Neither applied to Torgeson’s effort, La Sota noted.
“In this instance, there was no ‘candidate’, nor was there a ‘campaign committee contact person’ that was required to be listed under [ARS 16-1019] section (C)(5),” according to Torgeson’s statement of election contest. “As it was, Torgeson did include a valid telephone number on the signs, and there was no valid reason to move his signs or even contact him at all with regard to his signs.”
A few days after La Sota got involved, Gilbert officials responded with “an unconditional and complete reversal,” according to the lawsuit, although the town’s attorneys disputed Torgeson’s claim of violations of any U.S. and Arizona laws.
A subsequent public records request by Torgeson led to the discovery of an email from a town administrator to several other Gilbert employees about the possibility of having employees work overtime on Friday or the weekend to hurriedly remove Torgeson’s signs. (Town offices are open Monday through Thursday only.)
At one point, 15 employees or elected Gilbert officials “had some level of involvement in the effort to get rid of Torgeson’s signs,” the lawsuit states.
Torgeson adds that ARS 16-1019 was passed by the Arizona Legislature “to protect those engaged in free speech from overzealous regulatory efforts by municipalities, efforts that history has shown have not been applied evenly, and application has varied depending on the message conveyed in the sign.”
The lawsuit also alleges Gilbert officials distributed an improperly written informational pamphlet about the bond election. Such pamphlets are allowed by state law but must present “factual information in a neutral manner.”
According to the lawsuit, the pamphlet was written by the town not as “a presenter of neutral and factual information” but as an advocate promoting a “Yes” vote by describing bond approval as necessary to ensure Gilbert’s “quality of life for its residents” and the town’s “long-term sustainability.”
The result, Torgeson alleges, was voter disenfranchisement due to the town “putting its thumb on the scale.”
On Tuesday, a “larger than normal number” of Horizon High School (HHS) staffers were absent following the sudden administrative leave of HHS Principal Linda Inhat amid controversy over her role in the assignment of a contested book laden with porn, lewd stories, and profanity. That book, “So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed” by Jon Ronson, was also available in the school’s library.
Paradise Valley Unified School District (PVUSD) spokeswoman Becky Kelbaugh confirmed with AZ Free News that a substantial number of staff were absent on Tuesday: 34 in all. PVUSD couldn’t respond to whether Ihnat or the two English teachers who originally assigned the book, Brian Morgan and Jay Parizek, were under investigation by the district or by police. It is unclear whether the head of the HHS English department, Rachel Prince, will be subject to any investigative inquiries; Prince defended her department’s work during a school board meeting earlier this month following initial complaints about the book. It’s a class 4 felony in Arizona law to provide harmful materials to minors.
“We are aware of a larger than normal number of absences for some staff, for a variety of reasons, and have covered those absences with qualified staff and substitute teachers. Some of these absences were planned in advance of this week. The total number of absences today was 34,” said Kelbaugh. “At this time, PVSchools is unable to release information on personnel-related matters. We can confirm that Horizon High School principal, Linda Ihnat, is on leave and the assistant principal, Ms. Shelley Strohfus, will be serving as an acting principal.”
AZ Free News submitted a follow-up inquiry to discern the total number of teachers that didn’t plan their absences in advance, or offered a reason for absence related to the book incident. PVUSD didn’t respond by press time.
The mass absences came a day after PVUSD Superintendent Troy Bales emailed an announcement that Ihnat was on leave, as first reported by Arizona Daily Independent. The email didn’t offer a reason for Inhat’s sudden leave.
“In PVSchools, we value the importance of a stable and consistent learning environment and make all attempts to avoid disruptions during the school year. However, this email is meant to inform you of a change in leadership at the Horizon High School campus,” wrote Bales. “Today, we are announcing that Ms. Shelley Strohfus will begin serving as the acting principal at Horizon High School while Ms. Inhat is on leave. An acting principal assumes the day-to-day responsibilities of leading a school during the absence of a school principal.”
News of Ihnat’s leave came days after last week’s school board meeting, during which Bales apologized for the book’s assignment. He promised that the district would take short-term and long-term steps to rectify the issue that led to the book being assigned in the first place.
As AZ Free News reported last week, PVUSD made the contested book the primary summer reading assignment for 11th-grade advanced placement (AP) students, even though several years prior parents had complained about the same book and educators had promised it wouldn’t be assigned again.
Terri Jo Neff, an investigative reporter for AZ Free News and Arizona Daily Independent, explained Tuesday on James T. Harris’ radio show, The Conservative Circus, that this book assignment may present a legal issue with Arizona’s obscenity laws but it would be up to Scottsdale Police Department (SPD) to determine.
“What’s really interesting [about the law] is that it deals with furnishing harmful materials to a minor,” said Neff. “Think of this: if you were to take a 15-year-old student to an X-rated movie, [or] you took them to a live arts act and they were depicting the things that were in this particular book, that would be a felony.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
On Monday, Phoenix City Council Member Sal DiCiccio called for the city to put their COVID-19 vaccine mandate to a public vote. In his letter to City Manager Jeffrey Barton, who made the decision to implement the mandate, DiCiccio insisted that the mandate would only further strain their law enforcement staffing numbers.
“This decision will compromise vital citywide services to our residents, including public safety, which this Council has been aware of the alarming crime data and how the city is struggling to hire and retain personnel. A more thorough determination needs to be made on whether, under federal law, the City of Phoenix and it’s 13,000 employees are considered ‘federal contractors’ for the purposes of this mandate,” wrote DiCiccio. “A discussion and vote on this mandate needs to be held in public not behind closed doors. When this Council is mandating city employees to get vaccinated or else lose their job, pension, and years of service, the least this Council can do is be transparent with our employees.”
No more hide and seek for a Phoenix politicians. No more behind closed door meetings on major issues. Let's see which politicians sign off on this letter requiring a public vote on the mandatory vaccine.
The city of Phoenix announced its vaccine mandate last week, giving workers until January 18 to comply. Barton reasoned that the city needed to impose the mandate because a majority of their operations are sourced in federal contracts – a class of employees required to be vaccinated under the Biden Administration. They promised $75 for each employee who complied with the mandate by the deadline – a benefit initially introduced earlier this year as an incentive to get vaccinated, now apparently a thank-you for compliance.
First responder associations signaled their support for efforts to fight Phoenix’s mandate. The Phoenix Law Enforcement Association (PLEA) and The United Phoenix Firefighters Association (UPFA) joined as co-plaintiffs in Attorney General Mark Brnovich’s lawsuit against President Joe Biden’s vaccine mandate for federal contractors and employees.
“For us, this issue is not about the vaccine but a concern for the public safety staffing in Phoenix and our members’ right to make their own personal health choices,” stated UPFA. “Forcing first responders out of a job protects no one.”
For us, this issue is not about the vaccine but a concern for the public safety staffing in Phx and our members right to make their own personal health choices.
— United Phoenix Firefighters Association (@unitedphxffs) November 23, 2021
The PLEA Vice President Yvette Bro asserted that the city mandate would only worsen their staffing shortage.
“We can’t afford to lose one officer,” stated Bro.
Phoenix police join fight against federal mandate
Yvette Bro, vice president of the union representing Phoenix police officers said they are facing staffing shortages and the mandate will exacerbate that problem. “We can't afford to lose one officer," https://t.co/eMZ2ZQ8iiJ
City council candidate Sam Stone told AZ Free News that it was unconscionable for city leaders to unilaterally push for a mandate without input from those affected.
“This was a cowardly act by Phoenix politicians,” stated Stone. “They passed the buck because they know vaccine mandates are unpopular, and they want to gut our police force – but aren’t willing to take the blame for either of their poor decisions. Councilman DiCiccio is spot on to call for a public vote.”
Stone also insisted that city employees aren’t federal contractors, tweeting that the legal basis for the mandate was “bunk.” He warned AZ Free News that this mandate would grant the federal government more control over local government.
“Further, the city of Phoenix is not a federal contractor. Forget COVID for a minute, this sets a horrific precedent giving the federal government control over our cities and towns,” said Stone.
With the National Retail Federation estimating that 2 million more people will do holiday shopping between Thanksgiving Day and Cyber Monday, Arizona’s leading small-business association is reminding shoppers of the upside to reserving some of that money for Small Business Saturday on Nov. 27.
Started by American Express as a post-Thanksgiving, pre-Cyber Monday marketing gimmick in 2010, Small Business Saturday is now officially co-sponsored by the U.S. Small Business Administration. In 2019, Small Business Saturday shoppers at “mom and pop” type independent retailers and restaurants spent nearly $19.6 billion, which was topped last November at $19.8 billion despite ongoing pandemic challenges.
Michigan State University’s Center for Community and Economic Development has reported that of $100 spent at a locally owned business, $73 remained in the local economy in the form of higher wages, re-spending, and an improved tax base.
“Dollars spent at small, locally owned businesses are not sent to some out-of-state corporate parent,” said Chad Heinrich, Arizona state director for the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB). “Those dollars stay local and support the community.”
Earlier this month NFIB released the latest findings of its special COVID-19 polls showing 62 percent of small-business owners say their supply-chain disruptions are worse than three months ago. And 90 percent of respondents expect the problem to continue for the next five months, if not longer.
Equally troubling, according to Heinrich, is that NFIB’s Small Business Economic Trends report found the percentage of small-business owners expecting better business conditions in the coming months has fallen to its lowest level since November 2012.
That is why getting a large share of the nation’s estimated 158.3 million holiday shoppers to shop local small businesses is important, especially in Arizona where so many businesses continue to struggle post-pandemic.
“Shopping at small businesses helps the Arizona economy,” said Heinrich. “This is a tough time for our mom-and-pop businesses. If Arizonans focus on shopping local, this could be a jolly holiday season for all.”
According to American Express, last year’s Small Business Saturday exceeded expectations despite the pandemic due to small businesses pivoting to online sales and utilizing non-traditional advertising such as social media to stay connected with customers.
“In addition, small business owners rolled out a variety of giveaways and special offerings to consumers, a smart strategy as 43% of consumers reported that they took advantage of special offers or promotions from small businesses on the day,” AMEX reports.
Democratic voters don’t approve of Senator Kyrsten Sinema as of late, according to a poll conducted earlier this month by OH Predictive Insights (OHPI). A total of 47 percent of Democratic voters reported an unfavorable view of Sinema. Only 42 percent of Democrats liked Sinema. The same poll found that 84 percent of Democrat voters hold a very favorable view of President Joe Biden, despite his low approval ratings nationwide hovering between the mid 30s and the low 40s.
Democratic voters responded to hypothetical alternatives with an overwhelming preference for Democrats other than Sinema. 72 percent indicated that they would prefer a Democrat other than Sinema, if given the choice. 47 percent said they would support either Congressman Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) or Greg Stanton (D-AZ) over Sinema, while only 24 and 25 percent said they would support Sinema, respectively. If Superintendent of Public Instruction Kathy Hoffman were to toss her hat in the ring, 42 percent of Democrats indicated that they’d prefer Hoffman while only 24 percent would prefer Sinema.
OHPI Chief of Research Mike Noble said that though Sinema isn’t up for re-election until 2024, these numbers still don’t bode.
“Sinema’s growing unpopularity with voters from within her own party could prove fatal in 2024 when she will have to ask for Democrats’ support for re-nomination,” said Noble. “While there is still time between now and then, Sinema has ground to make up with her constituents in the next three years.”
These poll numbers come after multiple incidents in which constituents tracked down and harassed Sinema for her work at the Capitol. Early last month, activists filmed Sinema as they followed her into an Arizona State University (ASU) bathroom to demand answers for her delay in voting for the reconciliation bill. Sinema had been teaching her regular class when the activists came to protest.
Sinema rebuked the activists for the disruption, asserting that it wasn’t a legitimate protest. ASU Police Department later recommended that four individuals involved be charged with misdemeanors.
Then at the end of the month, activists disrupted a wedding in Bisbee, Arizona where Sinema was in attendance. One of the protestors filmed the bride coming out of a building, where she thanked protestors for “ruining her wedding” – to which one protestor responded, “You know what? She’s ruining our lives.”
The individual who filmed the interaction also interacted with the bride.
“It’s just my wedding…” said the bride.
“I know,” responded the camerawoman.
“Well, I really wish I could enjoy my wedding without you ruining it,” said the bride.
“I know you do,” repeated the camerawoman.
Later, the mother of the bride appeared, crying, and pleaded with the protestors to move their protest “just for an hour.” The protestors demanded that the mother confront Sinema and “throw her out” out of the wedding.
In an interview with ABC 15 last week, Sinema said she appreciated feedback from constituents.
“I appreciate when folks are willing to tell me they agree with me or they disagree with me. If they want to protest, if they want to offer thanks, all of that is welcome—that’s how I hear feedback from folks in Arizona. And I’m grateful for that feedback,” said Sinema. “I’ll also say that I’ll get up every single day and do what I’ve always done, which is just put Arizona first, put my head down, not get distracted by the noise, and just deliver the results. So I guess my message to folks would be keep telling me what you think. I appreciate it.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
