by Corinne Murdock | Nov 8, 2021 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
The vast majority of financial backers behind Yes for Safe and Efficient Gilbert Roads – a ballot measure expenditure campaign committee in support of the town’s $515 million transportation bond, which voters approved last week – are all who stand to benefit: builders, architects, general contractors, traffic data analysts, to name a few. Per the committee’s campaign finance reports, those financial backers accounted for $43,100 of the $54,850 they received since their inception.
The following is a breakdown of all those likely to benefit from passage of the transportation bond, and the donation amount associated with them:
- Arizona Chapter of Associated General Contractors of America: $15,000
- Haydon Building Corporation: $10,100
- Matthew Carpenter, COO and Senior Vice President: $10,000
- Grant Larson, PreConstruction Director: $100
- Willmeng Construction: $5,000
- Cactus Asphalt (a division of Cactus Transport Holdings): $5,000
- Josh Swartzendruber, Accounting Director
- Dibble Engineering: $2,000
- Kevin Roberts, President and Civil Engineer
- Kimley-Horn (engineering): $1,700
- Chris Woolery, Project Manager: $500
- David Leistiko, Senior Vice President and Senior Project Manager: $500
- David Rutkowski, Project Manager: $500
- Brent Mutti, Regional Project Manager: $200
- Michael Grandy, Professional Engineer: $50
- Deanna Haase, Project Manager: $50
- Wilson & Company, Engineers & Architects: $1,000
- Rebecca Timmer, Business Development Manager
- Withey Morris PLC (a prominent land use law firm): $1,000
- Adam Baugh, zoning attorney and owner
- All TrafficData Services: $1,000
- Eric Boivin, Co-Founder and CEO
- Clark Transportation Solutions: $500
- Scott Clark, President
- Kittelson & Associates: $450
- Jim Schoen, Senior Principal Engineer: $250
- David Mills, Operations Leader: $200
- HDA Architects: $250
- Bruce Scott, Principal Architect
- SUNDT: $100
- Jeff Hamilton, Project Director and Preconstruction Services
Some of the names leading the charge on in-state donors included the town’s present and former leadership: Vice Mayor Lee-Yung Koprowski gave $500, as did former mayor Jenn Daniels. Although the former mayor doesn’t own or work within an infrastructure-related company, her lobbying firm could stand to benefit as AZ Free News reported. Daniels also pushed her endorsement for the bond initiative through a text alert to Gilbert voters.
Councilwoman Kathy Tilque and Koprowski both serve as committee chairs, though the original filing for their committee didn’t name Koprowski as the chair. The committee formed in June of this year.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Terri Jo Neff | Nov 8, 2021 | News
By Terri Jo Neff |
It took more than seven years, but the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) announced last week its preferred route for the Sonoran Corridor, a 20- mile route through Pima County which will address several traffic issues, including heavy congestion and international traffic on Interstate 10 and Interstate 19 near Tucson.
“Following several years of study, technical analysis and input from communities and stakeholders, the Arizona Department of Transportation has selected a final 20.47 mile corridor through Pima County,” according to the Nov. 5 announcement, which noted several alternative routes were considered. In the end, Corridor Alternative 7 was selected.
The problem, however, is ADOT admits no funding is earmarked for the next round of environmental and engineering studies, let alone any land purchases or construction.
Plans for a Sonoran Corridor started in 2014 but kicked into drive in 2017 when ADOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) began a Tier 1 environmental review for a potential alternative route connecting I-10 to I-19 south of the Tucson International Airport. The overloaded highway system in that area is not only a public safety concern but also poses an impediment to future economic and population growth in the region.
The announced route connects to I-19 near El Toro Road in Sahuarita, tracks east for about two miles on a road that does not exist, then north on an extension of Alvernon Way. It then follows eastbound on the “Old Vail Connection Road” before connecting into I-10 near Rita Road and the UA Science and Technology Park.
According to ADOT, now that the preferred route for the Sonoran Corridor has identified, more studies must be conducted to further refine the selected 1,500-foot wide Sonoran Corridor and pinpoint a recommended 400-foot freeway alignment. Interchanges and other project elements also still need to be identified. Those studies are not yet funded.
The project is being developed as a phased implementation plan which allows for smaller segments of the selected corridor to advance as separate, independent projects. Additional analysis and opportunity for public / stakeholder review and comments will be available if or when ADOT secured funding to move the Sonoran Corridor forward.
A Sonoran Corridor fact sheet is available at https://azdot.gov/planning/transportation-studies/sonoran-corridor-tier-1-environmental-impact-statement/documents
by Corinne Murdock | Nov 7, 2021 | Education, News
By Corinne Murdock |
Maricopa County Community College District (MCCCD) may not prohibit nursing students with a religious objection to the COVID-19 vaccine from completing clinical rotations due to being unvaccinated, according to the U.S. District Court for Arizona.
U.S. District Judge Steven Logan issued the ruling Friday, as he’d promised at the hearing on Monday. The two plaintiffs – nursing students Emily Thoms and Kamaleilani Moreno – were granted a preliminary injunction against MCCCD’s vaccination requirement. Thoms and Moreno will be able to complete their nursing programs one way or another, whether by accommodation or through regular clinical rotations, by their scheduled graduation date next month.
“Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of both of their claims, that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm absent injunction, and that the balance of equities and the public interest weigh in their favor,” wrote Logan. “Their case is not doubtful, and the harm that they have alleged – the violation of their constitutional and fundamental right to free exercise – is an injury of the highest order under the Constitution and the law. Such an injury cannot be remedied by damages.”
While MCCCD claimed that they required universal vaccination due to their clinical partners’ requirements, Logan cited evidence given by the plaintiffs to the contrary. This evidence included MCCCD previously providing similar accommodations to other students for both religious and non-religious reasons: simulated clinicals, extra assignments, finding new clinical sites, and swapping assigned clinic sites requiring vaccination with those that didn’t.
Logan did note that Thoms and Moreno hurt their case by framing the lawsuit as a challenge to a “vaccine mandate,” because MCCCD doesn’t define its vaccine requirements as a mandate. For that reason, Logan modified their request for relief.
“The only vaccine mandates in this case belong to Defendant’s clinical partners, who are not parties before the Court. Rather, Defendant’s Policy is a set of requirements that together, when applied to Plaintiffs, are likely to substantially burden Plaintiffs’ right to freely exercise their sincere religious beliefs in violation of FERA and the First Amendment, to cause Plaintiffs irreparable harm, and to go against the public interest,” wrote Logan.
Both Christians, Thoms and Moreno objected to the COVID-19 vaccine due to its reliance on fetal cell lines during its testing, development, and production.
MCCCD Board Member Kathleen Winn criticized the district’s decision to hire a group of attorneys just to fight two nursing students. She also asserted that the nursing department head lied in court.
When this started back in August the administration could have done what this judge ordered us to do here. Instead we hired 5 attorneys to fight against these nursing students who represent thousands more in our state. The head of our nursing department lied in court, was caught and the judge made the best decision for these students allowing them their religious exemptions. If we appeal we are using taxpayers money to do so. Stand with these nursing students…I am proud of them and the moral courage to put it all on the line for the greater good!
https://www.facebook.com/kathleen.winn.3/posts/10221348773895842
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Corinne Murdock | Nov 6, 2021 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
Previous Democratic state representative Gabby Giffords alleged in a federal lawsuit that the National Rifle Association (NRA) broke campaign finance laws by using shell corporations to coordinate advertising with individuals running for federal office. The lawsuit alleged that the NRA illegally gave up to $35 million to the campaigns of at least seven candidates: previous President Donald Trump, who may have received up to $25 million; Republican Senators Josh Hawley (MO), Thom Tillis (NC), Ron Johnson (WI), Tom Cotton (AR); former Republican Senator Cory Gardner (CO); and Representative Matt Rosendale (MT).
These illegal contributions allegedly occurred in the 2014, 2016, and 2018 elections. In that last year, Giffords filed complaints to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against the NRA’s contributions. After the FEC didn’t act, Giffords sought and received a district court order this September to compel the FEC to act within 30 days. The FEC reportedly failed to act once again, allowing Giffords to sue. Those named in the complaint are the NRA, Rosendale, and Hawley.
Giffords’ counsel asserted that these allegedly illegal funds were the NRA “buying influence over elected officials” as part of a national scheme. Giffords Law Center Senior Staff Attorney David Pucino characterized the NRA and the politicians they backed financially as corrupt.
“The NRA has long acted like it is above the law, and it has done so flagrantly in the last several election cycles. This lawsuit demonstrates that the NRA broke the law by illegally coordinating with federal campaigns and funneling millions of dollars to candidates who supported their extremist, deadly agenda,” said Pucino. “We are suing the NRA to finally hold them accountable for actions that corrupted politicians and undermined our democracy.”
The NRA responded Thursday, asserting their innocence.
“[Just] another premeditated abuse of the public by our adversaries, who will stop at nothing in their pursuit of their anti-freedom agenda. This latest action is as misguided as it is transparent,” asserted the NRA. “Suffice it to say, the NRA has full confidence in its political activities and remains eager to set the record straight.”
Giffords’ lawsuit describes how she co-founded her gun violence nonprofit in 2013 to compete directly with the NRA after surviving a targeted shooting in 2011. The other co-founder was her husband, Democratic Senator Mark Kelly.
As AZ Free News reported in September, Kelly never recused himself from voting on President Joe Biden’s since-retracted nominee for the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), David Chipman, who his nonprofit hired, endorsed, and backed financially.
The lawsuit requests relief in the form of limited funding in future elections and a penalty payment matching their allegedly illegal contributions: up to $35 million.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Terri Jo Neff | Nov 5, 2021 | News
By Terri Jo Neff |
Criticism continues to grow against a sweeping new federal mandate supported by the Biden Administration which requires private employers of 100 or more employees to develop and enforce a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy.
The mandate, outlined in a 490-page document, is referred to as an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS). It establishes a Jan. 4, 2022 deadline for compliance, and requires employees of those companies to be vaccinated or be forced to wear a face covering at work while undergoing regular COVID-19 testing at the employee’s expense.
The Industrial Commission of Arizona (ICA) and the Arizona Attorney General’s Office are pushing back on the mandate which is estimated to cover more than 84 million employees, or about two-thirds of America’s private-sector workforce. OSHA estimates that about 23 million Americans will choose to undergo the vaccination to preserve their jobs.
On Thursday, the ICA issued a statement that Arizona businesses are not bound by OSHA’s mandate unless the commissioners vote to formally adopt a similar policy. Arizona is one of 22 states previously granted federal approval to operate a state plan to address issues typically under the purview of OSHA.
Then on Friday morning, Arizona was one of 11 state plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit filed in the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals against President Joe Biden and OSHA to stop the COVID-19 ETS. The petition contends the vaccination mandate “is unconstitutional, unlawful, and unwise” and an attempt to infringe on the States’ powers expressly reserved by the Tenth Amendment.
In addition to Arizona, the attorneys general from Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming are plaintiffs.
Also on Friday, State Rep. Steve Kaiser criticized the White House’s support of the workplace vaccine mandate, calling it “an onerous and overreaching policy that will hurt businesses and the people who they employ.”
Kaiser, a Republican who represents LD15 covering north Phoenix and Cave Creek, owns Junk King, a Phoenix area franchise providing removal and hauling services.
“As a small business owner, it’s clear to me that Biden’s policy would force employees to choose between being vaccinated against their will, completing weekly COVID-19 testing (at their own expense), or losing their jobs. That’s wrong,” he said. “It’s more critical than ever that Arizona defend businesses and their employees and ensure their ability to continue making decisions for themselves – instead of liberal politicians in Washington.”
According to Kaiser, state officials are doing the right thing by trying to protect Arizonans who would be harmed by implementation of what he calls a “terrible” mandate. He supports ICA’s position that Arizona -and not OSHA- has had the exclusive responsibility for nearly 50 years for developing and enforcing any occupational safety and health standards within the state.
“Under Arizona’s long-approved state-plan procedures, the Industrial Commission has exclusive authority to decide if, when, and to what extent the State of Arizona will adopt the OSHA vaccination ETS,” the ICA statement reads. “Arizona has a 47-year track record of protecting the safety and health of Arizona’s workers and remains fully committed to this mission.”
The ETS requires employers to determine the vaccination status of each employee, obtain acceptable proof of vaccination, maintain records of each employee’s vaccination status, and maintain a roster of each employee’s vaccination status. It also requires employers to provide employees with a variety of information and literature about COVID-19 and to provide an employee “reasonable time and paid sick leave to recover from side effects experienced following each dose.”
In addition, employers are now mandated to report work-related COVID-19 fatalities to OSHA within 8 hours of learning about them, and work-related COVID-19 in-patient hospitalizations within 24 hours of the employer learning about the hospitalization.
For now, OSHA officials are less confident that smaller employers can implement a mandatory vaccination policy “without undue disruption.” But it appears those smaller businesses could be facing a similar mandate in the future.
“OSHA needs additional time to assess the capacity of smaller employers, and is seeking comment to help the agency make that determination,” it says.
by Terri Jo Neff | Nov 5, 2021 | Economy, News
By Terri Jo Neff |
Earlier this month the Arizona Supreme Court agreed with a lower court’s ruling that parts of 4 of the 11 budget bills signed into law by Gov. Doug Ducey this summer are unconstitutional on procedural grounds. The reaction from business owners and community leaders was swift, with many left wondering when and how lawmakers will address the dozens of provisions dropped from those budget bills.
Among those provisions was a prohibition on a county, city, or town from issuing COVID-19 ordinances that impact private businesses, schools, churches, or other private entities, including mask mandates. Other prohibitions would have kept K-12 schools from requiring vaccines with an emergency use authorization for in-person attendance and ensured public universities and community colleges could not mandate COVID vaccines and vaccine passports.
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC) describes the Justices’ recent opinion as “devastating” and “a big blow to the people of Arizona.” The organization has drawn attention to the uncertainty and frustration across Arizona at a time when the pandemic impacts are still being felt in the state’s economy, and as individual freedoms are under attack.
As a result, the AFEC is leading the call for the Arizona Legislature and the Governor to immediately address the critical reforms that the Supreme Court struck down.
“They must exhaust every option possible, including special session, to protect Arizonans from more COVID mandates and the bigoted teachings of Critical Race Theory,” according to AFEC. “But make no mistake, while this ruling is devastating, it will not stop the battle over these critical issues. There’s just too much at stake. Because if the uncertainty and frustration caused by these issues are allowed to continue, it would be the most devastating news of all.”
