by Terri Jo Neff | Jul 25, 2021 | News
By Terri Jo Neff |
The announcement last week by officials of Ben & Jerry’s that the ice cream company would stop selling its products in the Israeli-controlled West Bank at the end of 2022 prompted Gov. Doug Ducey to call the move “discrimination.”
Ducey added that “Arizona stands with Israel” and said the state “will not do business with a company that boycotts Israel.” He also reminded Arizonans that as governor has twice signed legislation in an attempt to make sure the State does not contract with entities engaging in boycotts of Israel. It is unclear how much money was spent annually by state agencies on Ben & Jerry’s products before and after the legislation.
The decision by Unilever-owned Ben & Jerry’s came after pro-Palestinian activists worked to garner support within the United States for Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) efforts involving companies which do business in Israeli or in West Bank communities which Palestinians claim a right to.
The Anti-Defamation League calls BDS efforts anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, and bigoted.
Ben & Jerry’s has not announced any plans to step selling its products in any other areas of Israel, although a factory in southern Israel is reportedly slated for closure despite not being near occupied or disputed territory.
Both Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and Foreign Minister Yair Lapid criticized the decision by Ben & Jerry’s. And in New York, the board of directors of a grocery chain recently voted to cut off all promotional activities involving Ben & Jerry’s products.
Avi Kaner, co-owner of Morton Williams Supermarkets, said the objective of “extremists” within Ben & Jerry’s “is very, very selective boycotts specifically against the Jewish people,” particularly those who live in Jewish communities within disputed territories.
“Who is Ben & Jerry’s to say that little Jewish girls cannot have ice cream in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem?” Kaner said.
Earlier this year several students at Arizona State University (ASU) sought to pass a resolution in support of BDS efforts. The president of the ASU Undergraduate Student Government declined to put the matter on a meeting agenda.
by Terri Jo Neff | Jul 24, 2021 | News
By Terri Jo Neff |
Gov. Doug Ducey wants to remind the more than 50,000 military veterans living in Arizona that he signed legislation which now fully exempts military pensions from state income taxes.
“Veterans put the safety of our great nation first. We should honor their service, not tax it,” Ducey tweeted this week.
Arizona’s tax code previously exempted only $3,500 of a veteran’s military pension. Getting it to a full exemption was something Ducey announced as a priority during his January 2020 State of the State speech, but then the COVID-19 pandemic shut down all but priority budget considerations.
When the new legislative session convened in January 2021, the governor once again made tax relief for veterans a priority. It took until the last week of June, but the full exemption passed and Ducey signed the legislation.
“Our nation’s greatest heroes will no longer pay taxes on their retirement pay. This saves the average veteran an additional $650 a year,” Ducey said after signing the bill.
In addition to the pension income tax exemption, the Fiscal Year 2022 budget package signed by the governor includes $25 million for construction and operation of a State Veterans Home in northwestern Arizona. Additional funds were appropriated for operating State Veterans Homes recently opened in Flagstaff and Yuma.
Nearly $775,000 was appropriated to ADVS for the hiring of 12 additional Veteran Benefits Counselors, and the budget includes $100,000 earmarked for distribution to a charitable organization located in southern Arizona to work with regional Veterans organizations to improve services which can reduce Veteran suicides.
Ducey also signed SB1802 which establishes the date every August when Arizonans will recognize National Navajo Code Talkers Day.
Among those getting the word out to veterans is Col. Wanda Wright, director of the Arizona Department of Veterans’ Services (ADVS).
“This budget is a real win for Arizona Veterans,” Wright posted to the ADVS website. “It further proves that here in Arizona, we honor and support service members, Veterans and their families.”
by Corinne Murdock | Jul 24, 2021 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) announced it will require masks on buses – a direct violation of state law prohibiting school-enforced mask mandates. SUSD claimed that CDC authority was greater than the state’s authority. They cited the CDC order requiring masks on public transportation. SUSD claimed that this order not only applied to public school transportation – but private schools as well.
“There was a specific question regarding whether [the CDC order] applied to school buses […] the CDC confirmed that the order applies to school buses, whether they are operated by the district or by a private provider,” wrote SUSD. “SUSD will be complying with this federal requirement. Students who choose to ride the bus, along with SUSD bus drivers, will be required to wear masks while on the bus. Students are not required to wear masks while waiting at a bus stop or after they disembark, and drivers are not required to wear masks if not students are on the bus.”
SUSD parent Amanda Wray tweeted a screenshot of SUSD’s district-wide email announcing the mask mandate on Friday.
“It’s official, masks required on buses! @ScottsdaleUSD sat on this announcement as long as they could. Operated summer school and camp buses without masks, so what changed?” asked Wray.
https://twitter.com/AmandaWray/status/1418735083767300101
Earlier this month, the Arizona legislature banned mask mandates within its K-12 budget. The legislation prohibited schools from requiring masks during school hours or on any school property. The move followed the governor’s decision in April to rescind the order mandating masks in schools.
On the same day of SUSD’s announcement, Ducey doubled down on the assertion that there wouldn’t be any mask mandates in schools. In his pleadings with Arizonans to get vaccinated, he stated that the vaccines made mandates unnecessary.
“We will not be listening to the lockdown lobby. Businesses will stay open. Students will be able to attend school. There will be no mask mandates,” said Ducey. “We have a proven solution with the vaccine. I strongly encourage every Arizonan who is eligible for the vaccine to get it so they can protect themselves and our whole state.”
https://twitter.com/dougducey/status/1418617995824222210
Ducey didn’t respond to news of SUSD’s mask mandate.
At least one other lawmaker took notice. State Senator Michelle Ugenti-Rita (R-Scottsdale) responded to parents concerned over SUSD’s decision to break state law with a mask mandate. Ugenti-Rita accused SUSD of siding with the Biden Administration and socialism by imposing an unauthorized mask mandate.
“Why is @ScottsdaleUSD insistent on pushing the socialist agenda of the @JoeBiden administration…” wrote Ugenti-Rita. “If there ever was a better argument for school choice the Democrats are making it now! #LeaveOurKidsAlone[.]”
https://twitter.com/MichelleUgenti/status/1418748330964779012
This latest announcement comes on the heels of another controversial act undertaken by SUSD. As AZ Free News reported on Thursday, SUSD offered to send students an emotional health and wellness screening that asked for personal information, medical history or information, mental health history or information, quality of home and interpersonal relationship information, student biometric information, gun or ammunition ownership, and any relatives’ illegal, antisocial, or self-incriminating behaviors.
Students as young as kindergarteners were eligible to participate in this screening. Concerned parents asked SUSD about the screening description. SUSD officials responded that the description was part of a standard waiver form that wasn’t tailored for SUSD use, and that the screener wouldn’t acquire any of the information listed on the description.
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.
by Terri Jo Neff | Jul 23, 2021 | News
By Terri Jo Neff |
A lawsuit filed in Maricopa County Superior Court on Wednesday argues that efforts to have voters decide whether Arizona’s new flat-rate income tax and other tax law changes should go into effect are unconstitutional.
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC) is among the plaintiffs seeking a court order to bar the acceptance of petition signatures gathered by Invest In Arizona, a political committee sponsored by Arizona Education Association and Stand for Children – Arizona, which wants voters to overturn three revenue-related bills recently signed by Gov. Doug Ducey.
The problem with Invest in Arizona’s plan, the lawsuit argues, is that Article 4 of the Arizona Constitution prohibits referendums of legislation which deals with revenues and appropriations used for the “support and maintenance of the departments of state government and state institutions.”
AFEC is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) corporation organized and operated for the promotion of social welfare. It does so by engaging in public education and advocacy in support of free markets and economic growth in the State of Arizona.
Joining AFEC as plaintiffs in the lawsuit is the group’s executive director, Scott Mussi, as well as Diane Schafer, a registered voter from Yavapai County.
The legislation which Invest in Arizona wants to challenge via referendum are Senate Bills 1783, 1827, and 1828. The bills were passed near the end of the recent legislative session and then signed by Gov. Doug Ducey.
SB1828 amends Arizona’s current income tax brackets and tax rates and provides for a single income tax rate of 2.5 percent conditioned on certain general fund revenue thresholds. It was the cornerstone of Ducey’s budget package approved by the legislature earlier this month.
A companion bill, SB1827, ensures an individual taxpayer’s taxable income will not be subject to an overall marginal tax rate of more than 4.5 percent when a tax surcharge from Prop 208 (Invest In Ed) is considered. Meanwhile, SB1783 allows certain small business owners to pay an alternative small business tax.
The legislation is slated to take effect 90 days after the governor affixed his signature. That 90-day window provides time for challengers to initiate a petition signing drive to take the matter out of lawmakers’ hands and put it before voters across the state via a referendum.
Getting a matter onto a ballot as a referendum requires valid petition signatures to be submitted to Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs equal to five percent of the total votes cast in the last gubernatorial election. If that happens, then the new laws would remain on hold until voters have their say in a statewide election.
And that, according to AFEC, Mussi, and Schafer, should not be allowed to happen with SB1783, 1827, and 1828 because each deals directly with the generation of state revenue for funding Arizona’s state government and state institutions. Their lawsuit asks a Maricopa County judge to bar Hobbs from accepting petition signatures for any of the three bills.
“The filing of petitions in support of the Proposed Referenda will injure the Plaintiffs and all Arizona taxpayers by unconstitutionally delaying the effective date of non- referrable laws duly enacted by the elected Legislature and approved by the Governor,” the lawsuit states.
The plaintiffs are represented by Thomas Basile of the Statecraft Law Firm. Basile says his clients are not against voter referendums in general and only initiated this legal action to ensure the Arizona Constitution is followed by Hobbs’ office.
“At the core of our case is that while the right of referendum is broad, it is not unlimited,” he told AZ Free News on Thursday. “The framers of our Constitution carved out certain categories exempt to referendum, such as in the case of tax reform and appropriations.”
Hobbs is named as a defendant in her official capacity as the state officer responsible for accepting or rejecting referendum petition sheets. Invest in Arizona is also named as a real party in interest.
by Terri Jo Neff | Jul 23, 2021 | Education, News
By Terri Jo Neff |
An investigation by the Arizona Auditor General has led to criminal charges being filed earlier this month against several people involved with the building of two new schools for the Higley Unified School District in Gilbert, including the district’s former superintendent, it was announced late Thursday.
Angela Denise Birdwell was indicted July 13 by a state grand jury for 18 counts related to procurement fraud, misuse of public monies, fraudulent schemes and practices, conflict of interest, filing a false state tax return, fraudulent schemes and artifices, and conspiracy. She served as Higley’s superintendent from 2009 until her retirement in 2015.
“Public officials with oversight authority have a responsibility to properly manage the administration of money and property entrusted to them and must ensure that sufficient internal controls are designed and implemented to protect those assets,” according to the Auditor General’s report. “Nevertheless, a system of internal controls will not succeed when those in a position to oversee those operations are perpetrating unlawful behavior and concealing their misconduct.”
Among the more serious issues identified by the Auditor General was Birdwell’s possible misuse of public monies from December 2012 to November 2013 when she authorized or caused the unlawful use of $6 million in restricted public funds toward construction of two new schools in the Higley district, which serves about 10,000 PK-12 students.
Also indicted were Gary Aller and Steven Nielsen, both corporate officers of Educational Facilities Development Services (EFDS) which was awarded a $2.5 million project development service contract related to construction of the new schools. Investigators believe EFDS had access to “early and exclusive Project information” which provided the company an advantage over other prospective vendors.
Public records show Aller and Nielsen founded EFDS in 2012 just two weeks before the Higley District issued an RFP for project development services. The men are each charged with three felonies related to fraudulent schemes and practices, conspiracy, and fraudulent schemes and artifices. There is also an allegation Birdwell violated state procurement laws in connection to the EFDS contract.
“Dr. Birdwell was 1 of 3 selection committee members, and she evaluated EFDS with the only perfect score and recommended Higley award EFDS the Project development services contract, which the Higley Governing Board approved on July 12, 2012,” the report states.
Meanwhile, three felonies related to filing of a false state tax return were brought by the state grand jury against Kay Hartwell Hunnicutt, an attorney described in the Auditor General’s report as being a “close acquaintance” of Birdwell, with whom she shared a home as well as a checking account.
According to the Auditor General, Birdwell indirectly received or benefited from $43,000 paid by Hunt & Caraway Architects Ltd., which served as the district’s procurement advisor and was part of the EFDS development team. Hunt & Caraway, whose now deceased president was never registered in Arizona as an architect, issued checks to Hunnicutt or Hunnicutt’s law office, which were then deposited in a checking account held jointly by Birdwell and Hunnicutt.
Concerns have been rife for years about misconduct related to the school construction projects, according to State Rep. Jake Hoffman (R-LD12), who served as a Higley district board member from 2013 to 2015. Hoffman says he and another board member were criticized by Higley district administrators in response their attempts to look into concerns at the time.
“The level of apparent corruption is staggering and heartbreaking. I am proud to have actively fought against this abuse of power, misuse of taxpayer monies, and blatant disregard for the law during my tenure on the Higley governing board,” Hoffman said, adding that he plans to use the Auditor General’s findings to push for education reform during next year’s legislative session.
After retiring from Higley, Birdwell received eight checks totaling $57,000 from Hunt & Caraway before she was hired in 2016 by the Scottsdale Unified School District as its superintendent through June 2019.
The memo section on two of the Hunt & Caraway checks referred to “consulting” but the company failed to provide investigators any documents supporting the purposes of the checks.
But Birdwell’s time at SUSD was cut short, when she was given a $150,000 contract buyout in April 2018 after district officials alleged she failed to disclose a “substantial, personal interest” with Hunt & Caraway, which billed the Scottsdale District for nearly $2 million after Birdwell became its superintendent.
Birdwell is accused of not claiming the payments as income on her state income tax returns.
Court dates have not been announced for the four defendants who will stand trial in Maricopa County Superior Court.
by Terri Jo Neff | Jul 22, 2021 | News
By Terri Jo Neff |
Shockwaves continue to ripple through Arizona’s beleaguered healthcare industry after Tuesday’s emailed announcement by Banner Health CEO Peter Fine that employees could lose their jobs if they fail to provide proof of a COVID-19 vaccination by Nov. 1.
Fine’s companywide email touted uncited “overwhelming evidence” and “vaccine data” which purportedly proves the “safety and efficacy” of the three current vaccines. Employees will have the option to undergo an unspecified “exemption request process,” in hopes of retaining their job without being vaccinated but the between-the-lines message to Banner Health employees is that terminations are possible for refusing to subject themselves to the risks of an emergency-use-only vaccine.
Banner Health is also putting up $100,000 to award 10 fully-vaccinated employees with $10,000 each in a companywide drawing this summer.
“We care for some of the most vulnerable people in our communities and we owe it to them to take every measure possible to ensure the safest care environment,” Fine wrote, adding that mandatory vaccinations will reduce risk “for our patients, their families, visitors and each other.”
The problem, according to many in the healthcare industry, is that Arizona is already experiencing a shortage of workers in a high demand market. An exodus of qualified workers to other hospital systems or into smaller healthcare companies could leave Banner Health without enough medical professionals to adequately serve its patients.
Studies show the majority of healthcare workers who have declined so far to be vaccinated for COVID-19 are under the age of 40. Many have expressed concern about the lack of data about long-term impacts on fertility and overall health.
In April, Gov. Doug Ducey issued an Executive Order banning proof of vaccinations, also known as vaccine passports, and preventing state and local governments from requiring anyone to disclose their COVID-19 vaccination status to receive service or enter a public area.
The Order, however, allowed health care institutions to require COVID-19 vaccination status documentation of a patient, resident, employee, or visitor.
Protecting all Arizonans from being coerced into obtaining a COVID-19 vaccination was a priority for Rep. Bret Roberts throughout the recent legislative session. Roberts (R-LD11) advocated strongly for passage of a state law to prevent government and private employers from interfering with anyone’s freedom of choice when it came to being vaccinated.
Eventually the language of Roberts’ bill was watered down to protect those doing business with government entities, as well as customers and clients of private employers. Employees of private companies -particularly those working in the healthcare industry- would have had no protection.
The bill never made it to Ducey’s, but the governor did sign legislation which ensures any person “may refuse a vaccination…based on the person’s personal beliefs” during a public health emergency.
Roberts spoke out Tuesday against Banner Health’s mandate, expressing concern about the unknown risks associated with the current COVID-19 vaccines.
“Force and coercion, in my opinion, are not routes that should be taken,” he said. “Adults should be able to weigh the risks involved and decide for themselves.”
One of those who opposed freedom of choice protections for employees of private companies was State Sen. T.J. Shope (R-LD8). Shope bragged earlier this month about protecting Arizonans -including legislative staffers- from government required proof of vaccinations, but refused to support the same protections for most employees across the state.
To date, Banner is the largest private employer in Arizona to announced forced vaccinations as a condition of new or continued employment. However, earlier this year the U.S. Chamber of Commerce provided tips to its members on how to persuade employees and customers to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.
“Vaccination is a personal decision, so it’s logical that when employers show a personal willingness to be vaccinated, they are more likely to increase the willingness of their employees—across all demographic groups – to follow their lead and get the shot,” according to the chamber’s website.
The website also provides guidance for employers on talking to employees about getting vaccinated and includes advice on conducting business-sponsored “get vaccinated” events.
