A state senator has introduced a bill to prohibit public school districts from using taxpayer dollars to pay for membership in a state or national school board association.
Current state law allows a school district governing board to budget and spend funds for membership in an association of school districts within Arizona. But a school district board is not permitted to spend taxpayers’ dollars to join an association which attempts to influence the outcome of an election.
“The Arizona School Boards Association (ASBA) has a consistent pattern of lobbying with a clear bias,” Sen. Kelly Townsend (R-LD16) said Tuesday. “This constitutes political activity and is often against the very taxpayers that funded them.”
ASBA “should be serving the parents, and not working hard against them,” Townsend added.
As a result, Townsend is sponsoring Senate Bill 1011, which would still allow a school district to join ASBA or another state association, as long as the membership dues are not paid by taxpayer funds. That leaves ASBA the option, Townsend suggested, of pursuing 501(c)(4) tax exempt status so it can fundraise for operational money “without relying on the taxpayer.”
SB1011 passed out of the Senate Education Committee on Tuesday via a 5-3 partisan vote.
The Arizona Association of County School Superintendents has come out against Townsend’s bill, as has the Arizona School Administrators Association. Among those supporting SB1011 include the Center for Arizona Policy and Diane Douglas, who served as Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction from 2015-2018.
School boards and associations have come under scrutiny the last two years due to COVID-19 protocols which have frequently pitted educators and administrators against the wishes of parents. It has led to a groundswell of parental interest in school operations and curriculum, as well as in how school boards spend funds.
Last September, the National School Boards Association got sideways with many school district governing boards and parents after sending a letter to President Joe Biden complaining about purported threatening and aggressive behavior on the part of parents toward school board members.
NSBA claimed such actions amounted to domestic terrorism which warranted federal law enforcement intervention. The fallout led several state school board associations to withdraw from NSBA.
And in Arizona, it resulted in the creation last year of the Arizona Coalition of School Board as an alternative to ASBA, which is still a member of NSBA.
Townsend recently requested records from ASBA about its expenditures for legal fees in connection with any litigation involving the state. She said her intent is to determine whether those expenditures came from dues paid by any Arizona school board.
ASBA did not comply with her public record request, Townsend said.
“I would hate to know the dues this organization receives from school boards are being used to pay attorneys to sue our state and overturn legislation we’re crafting on behalf of these constituents,” she said. “This is completely inappropriate, and I will be looking into whether or not taxpayer money has been used in this fashion to undo our laws.”
The struggle over the presence of critical race theory continues with a new bill proposing to ban the controversial academic concept from K-12 classrooms. State Representative Michelle Udall (R-Mesa) introduced the bill, HB2112, which passed 6-4 in the committee that Udall chairs, the Education Committee, on Tuesday.
State Representative Reginald Bolding (D-Laveen), Daniel Hernandez (D-Tucson), Jennifer Pawlik (D-Chandler), Judy Schwiebert (D-Phoenix) voted against the bill.
The bill would prohibit educators from using public money on instruction that blames or judges based on race, ethnicity, or sex. The bill would also prohibit teaching that one race, ethnic group, or sex is inherently moral or intellectually superior; that an individual is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive either consciously or unconsciously; that an individual should be discriminated against or treated poorly because of their race, ethnicity, or sex; that individual’s moral character is determined by their race, ethnic group, or sex; that an individual is responsible for actions committed by other members of their same race, ethnic group, or sex; that an individual should feel negative emotions because of their race, ethnicity, or sex; and that academic achievement, meritocracy, or traits like hard work are racist or sexist and created to oppress others.
Violation of the bill’s provisions may result in revocation of the educator’s teaching certificate and the charge of a $5,000 fine. School attorneys would confer with the attorney general or county attorney to determine whether a violation occurred.
Critical race theory (CRT) proposes that the U.S. was inherently and systemically racist from its founding and that racism persists through oppressive systems such as capitalism and Christianity. The theory claims that American meritocracy is a myth.
CRT relies on a concept of hierarchies called intersectionality, which asserts that personal traits such as race, gender, class, sexual orientation, disability, etc. determine one’s oppression and privilege. CRT presents a dichotomy: the inherent evil of “whiteness,” and the inherent goodness of “blackness.” In order to fully accept these perspectives, individuals must assume a “race-conscious” outlook on the world and reject the idea that racism comes from beliefs and actions rooted in the intentional hatred of race.
The ultimate goal of CRT is to overthrow this country and remake it in another image.
In the most informal sense of the word, CRT may qualify as a religion. Credit for popularization of the theory is often awarded to Kimberlé Crenshaw, a legal scholar and current law professor at UCLA School of Law and Columbia Law School. In 1995, Crenshaw authored the book “Critical Race Theory: the key writings that formed the movement” in an effort to explain CRT’s nature and purpose.
“Critical Race Theory is an intellectual movement that is both particular to our postmodern (and conservative) times and part of a long tradition of human resistance and liberation,” wrote Crenshaw.
The concepts that make up CRT may be presented independently or under different names, like: social-emotional learning (SEL), culturally responsive education (CRE), and anti-racism. Crenshaw acknowledged these superficial disparities in her 1995 book, assuring readers that unity exists behind these apparent differences.
“Although [CRT] scholarship differs in object, argument, accent, and emphasis, it is nevertheless unified by two common interests. The first is to understand how a regime of white supremacy and its subordination of people of color have been created and maintained in America and, in particular, to examine the relationship between that social structure and professed ideals such as ‘the rule of law’ and ‘equal protection.’ The second is a desire not merely to understand the vexed bond between law and racial power but to change it,” wrote Crenshaw.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is seeking comments about eight emerging technology areas: Artificial Intelligence, Internet of Things in Manufacturing, Quantum Computing, Blockchain Technology, New and Advanced Materials, Unmanned Delivery Services, Internet of Things, and Three-dimensional Printing, to assist in the preparation of a report to Congress.
A Request for Information (RFI) was announced in the Federal Register under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce, who is directed to coordinate with the Federal Trade Commission and other federal agencies to complete a study of the eight emerging technology areas.
The RFI seeks comments about public and private sector marketplace trends, supply chain risks, legislative, policy, and the future investment needs of the technology areas to help identify, understand, refine, and guide the development of the eight emerging technologies. Those eight areas are, more specifically:
Artificial Intelligence—on the state of the artificial intelligence industry and the impact of such industry on the United States economy,
Internet of Things in Manufacturing—on the use of internet-connected devices and internet-connected solutions in manufacturing in the United States,
Quantum Computing—on the state of the quantum computing industry and the impact of such industry on the United States economy,
Blockchain Technology—on the state of the blockchain technology industry and the impact of such industry on the United States economy,
New and Advanced Materials—on the state of the new and advanced materials industry, including synthetically derived materials or those with enhanced natural properties, and the impact of such industry on the United States economy,
Unmanned Delivery Services (air or ground)—on the impact of unmanned delivery services on businesses conducting interstate commerce and the impact of such industry on the United States economy, rules and regulations,
Internet of Things—on the state of the internet-connected devices industry and the impact of such industry on the United States economy, and
Three-dimensional Printing—on the state of the three-dimensional printing industry and the impact of such industry on the United States economy.
For each emerging technology area, NIST needs input useful to the fostering of economic growth and competitiveness across the United States for benefit all Americans.
As a result, the NIST is inviting stakeholders throughout the scientific research, standards, advocacy, industry, and non-scientific communities, as well as the general public, to provide comments. From the comments, a Congressional report will be developed “in a manner consistent with its mission to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness,” according to the RFI.
Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on Jan. 31. To submit comments electronically, go to www.regulations.gov and enter NIST-2021-0007 in the search field. Click on the “Comment Now” icon and complete the required fields, and then enter or attach your comments.
The “Patient’s Right to Know Act,” HB2196, would require both health care facilities to disclose any religious denial of services, and then require insurance providers to relay that information to their enrollees. The first half of the bill described how health care providers must offer a list of those services, while the second half described how insurance providers must give enrollees those services denied by the list of facilities within their network.
State Representative Pamela Powers Hannley (D-Tucson) introduced the bill. Others that sponsored the bill included Representatives Richard Andrade (D-Glendale), Jasmine Blackwater-Nygren (D-Red Mesa), Kelli Butler (D-Phoenix), Andrés Cano (D-Tucson), Andrea Dalessandro (D-Sahuarita), Brian Fernandez (D-Yuma), Sarah Liguori (D-Phoenix), Christopher Mathis (D-Tucson), Marcelino Quiñonez (D-Phoenix), Judy Schwiebert (D-Phoenix), Christian Solorio (D-Phoenix), and State Senator Rosanna Gabaldon (D-Sahuarita).
The bill offered an expansive definition of religious beliefs to include philosophical beliefs or anything that deviates from the consensus within the health care community. The bill didn’t disclose how those “legal, peer-reviewed, or scientifically accepted standards” were determined.
“‘Religious beliefs’ means any set of philosophical or religious beliefs, guidelines, decrees or directives or other instructions determining patient care that are not based on legal, peer-reviewed or scientifically accepted standards of health care and that may be imposed on a health care entity through employment or clinical privileges,” read the bill.
If passed, the bill would give health care facilities one year to come up with a complete list of services they don’t provide due to their religious services. They would also have to inform state and federal agencies that license or enroll facilities in reimbursement programs.
Insurance providers, on the other hand, would have 18 months to comply. They would be helped along by another provision of the bill requiring health care facilities to give insurance providers a list of the denied services, and post that list online publicly.
This is the sixth year in a row that Powers Hannley has brought forth her “Patient’s Right to Know Act.” Powers Hannley sits on the Health and Human Services Committee. According to Powers Hannley, the intent of her bill is to eradicate all influence of religious beliefs in the health care sector for good.
In a blog post published a year before the infamous Capitol Hill riot and several months before the emergency state declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic — January 6, 2020 — Powers Hannley explained that she introduced the bill originally with abortion and birth control in mind. However, she began to envision other health care service denials, citing the denial of a hormone prescription to a transgender woman.
At the time, Powers Hannley characterized the increasing number of Catholic-owned hospitals as “very scary.”
Only two weeks are left to apply to the Economic Development Administration (EDA) for grant funding under the American Rescue Plan Act for Travel, Tourism, and Outdoor Recreation.
The EDA aims to assist communities and regions in recovery from the coronavirus pandemic’s significant negative impact on the travel, tourism, and outdoor recreation sectors. The grant program is designed to provide a wide-range of financial assistance to communities and regions to rebuild and strengthen their travel, tourism, and outdoor recreation industry through various infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects.
EDA, which is part of the U.S. Department of Commerce, has already issued $510 million in tourism grants directly to states, including nearly $6 million to Arizona. Another $240 million is set aside for EDA Competitive Tourism Grants to at least 150 applicants.
According to EDA, eligible entities are a public or private non-profit organization or association acting in cooperation with a general purpose political subdivision of a State; an institution of higher education or a consortium of institutions of higher education; a State, county, city, or other political subdivision of a State, or a consortium of political subdivisions; an Indian Tribe or a consortium of Indian Tribes; or a District Organization of an EDA-designated Economic Development District.
Eligible applicants for EDA’s Competitive Tourism Grants are advised to apply no later than Jan. 31, so the agency can review and process the application in time to get a potential award in place prior to deadlines imposed by Congress. Any award is subject to the availability of funds.
Absent from the Arizona Department of Health (ADHS) report last week that unvaccinated individuals were 31.1 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than their vaccinated peers were any comorbidities. ADHS also claimed that the unvaccinated were nearly five times as likely to test positive for COVID-19. ADHS disclosed that they omitted length of time since vaccination and other demographics in addition to underlying conditions.
In similar sample studies, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a study indicating that comorbidities exacerbated the effects of the virus — even for the vaccinated. In the study released last week, the CDC found that 78 percent of the 36 vaccinated individuals who died had four or more comorbidities. All of the nearly 200 people who experienced a severe outcome from COVID-19 had at least one comorbidity.
“Among 1,228,664 persons who completed primary vaccination during December 2020 [through] October 2021, a total of 2,246 (18.0 per 10,000 vaccinated persons) developed COVID-19 and 189 (1.5 per 10,000) had a severe outcome, including 36 who died (0.3 deaths per 10,000),” read the report.
CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky stirred controversy by remarking on the study to ABC on their show “Good Morning America.” Walensky cited the fact that the overwhelming majority of deaths from vaccinated individuals that contracted COVID-19 within the study had multiple comorbidities.
“The overwhelming number of deaths, over 75 percent, occurred in people who had at least four comorbidities, so really these are people who were unwell to begin with,” said Walensky.
In response to uproar over her comments, ABC updated their interview with Walensky to include an extended version in which she discussed the data within the context of the study.
One major comorbidity shared by nearly two-thirds of the nation is excess weight: approximately 42 percent of adults are obese, with another 30 percent overweight. The CDC warned that obesity increases the likelihood of serious illness from COVID-19.
The ADHS report preceded this week’s major developments on the pandemic that appeared to have turned the tide on the nation’s approach to perceiving and responding to COVID-19.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) struck down President Joe Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate requiring employers with 100 or more employees to mandate the vaccine or weekly testing.
Prior to that, major news outlets such as the Associated Press and The Atlanticupdated their internal guidance on COVID-19 coverage to eradicate mention of case numbers. The outlets asserted that the case counts weren’t high enough because they relied on reportable cases by health authorities, not at-home tests or those that don’t get tested because they’re asymptomatic.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
