by B. Hamilton | Jun 6, 2021 | News
By B. Hamilton |
The Arizona Board of Regents has agreed “with all the findings,” the Auditor General reached in a recent performance audit related to Arizona’s state universities’ failure to consistently follow its guidelines.
The Arizona Board of Regents also agreed that it failed to provide adequate oversight of the universities.
On Thursday, June 3 the Arizona Auditor General released the second in a series of three audit reports on the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) as part of the organization’s mandatory sunset review.
The audit looked at whether ABOR’s guidelines governing university-affiliated organizations, such as university foundations and alumni associations, were consistent with recommended practices and the extent to which the universities complied with these guidelines.
The bottom line, according to the Auditor General: “The universities have not consistently followed ABOR’s guidelines governing university relationships with affiliated organizations, limiting full transparency and accountability for some university resources provided to and the benefits received from these organizations, nor did ABOR regularly receive information on affiliated organization activities.”
The Auditor General’s report includes the following findings:
• ABOR defines affiliated organizations as legally separate nonprofit corporations that hold economic resources and carry out activities primarily in support of the universities; and the State’s 3 universities have established relationships with 19 affiliated organizations, including fundraising foundations, real estate organizations, and alumni associations.
• In fiscal year 2019, the universities’ affiliated organizations made $253.5 million in payments to benefit the universities for various purposes, including donations and scholarships, and the universities paid $102.8 million to their affiliated organizations for various purposes, including service fees, real estate debt service, and expense reimbursements.
• Universities lacked current agreements and complete documentation and disclosure of some transactions with some of their affiliated organizations, limiting their ability to demonstrate the public purpose of university resources provided to these organizations and hold them accountable for providing expected benefits and agreed-upon services.
• ABOR’s affiliated organization guidelines lack some requirements to ensure full transparency and accountability and ABOR has not explicitly overseen universities’ compliance with its guidelines.
• ABOR has not required universities to report information it needs to identify, monitor, and mitigate risks associated with affiliated organization activities such as mismanagement, investment losses, and fraud.
The issues of ABOR have been ongoing. In July of 2019, the Arizona Attorney General filed a lawsuit against ABOR and Arizona State University (ASU) alleging violations of Arizona’s constitutional gift clause, and in October of 2019, the Arizona Auditor General released an audit that describes similar issues.
The Arizona Attorney General alleged that ABOR and ASU violated Arizona’s constitutional gift clause when they gifted Omni Hotel almost 37 million dollars upfront in discounted property valuations, paying for a parking garage, and paying an additional $19.5 million to build a conference center where ASU was only contracted to use 7 days per year.
The Arizona Attorney General’s records also indicated that ASU valued the property, located at the corner of Mill and University, at $85 per square foot, yet across the street, the Hilton Canopy paid $212 per square feet.
The courts, though, rejected the Attorney Generals’ arguments on the matter.
In the most recent audit, the Arizona Auditor General states that still “Universities have not consistently documented and disclosed some affiliated organization transactions, limiting full transparency and accountability, and ABOR has not explicitly overseen university compliance with its guidelines.”
This is after a response from ABOR in October of 2019, stating that due to the policies being revised in December 2018, they had not had the chance to implement the new policies effectively. Now, with the new audit, ABOR has agreed to implement the recommendations by the Auditor General.
According to the 2019 audit, the Campus Research Corporation (CRC) spent an estimated $38.1 million without written approval due to the UA not being able to demonstrate written approval from the UA president for the CRC’s budget and, instead, relied on the CRC’s Board of Directors to approve its own budget. The CRC also, contrary to the master lease agreements, inappropriately advanced $3.9 million generated at one property to another property, including approximately $1 million that the CRC advanced to the other property in fiscal years 2017 and 2018 instead of paying rent to the UA.
In 2019, ABOR had entered into 3 master lease agreements with the CRC, a nonprofit, nongovernmental organization affiliated with UA to operate, manage, and sublease ABOR properties.
The UA also failed to retain records of its public activities related to overseeing ABOR’s master lease agreements with CRC, contrary to public records laws.
ABOR continues to lack comprehensive property information to independently oversee and manage the use of its properties. As of May 2019, ABOR did not maintain a complete list of all property that it owns, although its policy requires the universities to maintain some information on ABOR properties they use. A review of the Arizona county assessors’ and treasurers’ records identified 1,127 parcels in Arizona potentially owned by ABOR and compared this information to property listings the universities provided.
Findings indicate that NAU’s listing did not include a 23-acre parcel listed on the county assessor records as ABOR-owned and included 8 acres of property for which it could not demonstrate ABOR’s ownership; UA’s listing included 255 acres of property ABOR never owned and nearly 83 acres that ABOR had sold; and ASU’s listing was limited to its commercial properties, which is only a portion of ABOR properties ASU uses.
The Auditor General found that “Although the universities have developed processes for mitigating the risk of inaccurate property ownership information, ABOR’s lack of comprehensive property information limits its ability to oversee and manage the use of its properties.”
by AZ Free News | Jun 6, 2021 | News
Reprinted from the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum |
As dawn broke on June 6, 1944, German soldiers defending the French coast at Normandy beheld an awe-inspiring sight—the largest amphibious invasion force in history massed in the waters of the English Channel. The long-awaited invasion of northwest Europe was underway.
The giant invasion had taken years to organize. Hundreds of thousands of men and millions of tons of weapons and equipment were transported across the Atlantic Ocean to Britain in advance of the operation. The invasion force consisted chiefly of Americans, Britons, and Canadians. But troops of the Free French and many other nations also participated.
The invasion was the culmination of Franklin Roosevelt’s Grand Strategy, especially his decision to pursue a “Germany First” policy and his insistence—in the face of Churchill’s preference for a peripheral strategy—that the operation go forward in 1944.
The Normandy invasion established a solid “Second Front” in Europe. Its success left Hitler’s armies trapped in a vise, fighting the Red Army in the East and an expanding Anglo-American-Canadian force in the West.
During the tense early hours of the invasion, FDR monitored reports from the front. That evening, he delivered a statement to the American people. It took the form of a prayer, which he read on national radio.
Franklin D. Roosevelt’s D-Day Prayer
On the night of June 6, 1944, President Roosevelt went on national radio to address the nation for the first time about the Normandy invasion. His speech took the form of a prayer.
The date and timing of the Normandy invasion had been top secret. During a national radio broadcast on June 5 about the Allied liberation of Rome, President Roosevelt made no mention of the Normandy operation, already underway at that time.
When he spoke to the country on June 6, the President felt the need to explain his earlier silence. Shortly before he went on the air, he added several handwritten lines to the opening of his speech that addressed that point. They read: “Last night, when I spoke to you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and our allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater operation. It has come to pass with success thus far.”
Prayer on D-Day, June 6, 1944:
“My fellow Americans: Last night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and our allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater operation. It has come to pass with success thus far.
And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer:
Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.
Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.
They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.
They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest-until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men’s souls will be shaken with the violences of war.
For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and good will among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home.
Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.
And for us at home — fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas — whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them–help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.
Many people have urged that I call the Nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts.
Give us strength, too — strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces.
And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be.
And, O Lord, give us Faith. Give us Faith in Thee; Faith in our sons; Faith in each other; Faith in our united crusade. Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.
With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogancies. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister Nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.
Thy will be done, Almighty God.
Amen.”
by B. Hamilton | Jun 5, 2021 | News
By B. Hamilton |
As COVID-19 vaccination rates drop sharply in Arizona, health officials are pivoting away from mass-vaccination sites to more community outreach efforts which include relying on pharmacies, doctors’ offices, community events, and mobile pop-up events.
State-run vaccination sites have already started to phase out with changes to days and times of operations. Saturday, June 5, will be the last day individuals can receive the first dose and have a second dose scheduled at a state-operated vaccine site before the final site at Gila River Arena in Glendale officially closes Monday, June 28.
After June 5, the first doses will still be administered, but patients will be given information on alternate locations to receive second doses of the Pfizer vaccine, which is administered at these sites.
State-run vaccination sites have administered 1.6 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine to nearly 900,000 individuals to date.
To date, 5,927,868 doses of the COVID-19 vaccine have been administered to 3,345,912 individuals, including 2,831,240 who are fully vaccinated. About 47% of Arizona’s total population has received at least one dose of vaccine, and 39% of the population has been fully vaccinated.
However, President Joe Biden insisted that 70% of the population had to be vaccinated for Americans to fully enjoy Independence Day. With Arizonans already acting fairly independently and enjoying the out-of-doors as well as shopping without the benefit of a mask or a vaccine, it is unlikely Arizona will meet Biden’s standard.
Still, Dr. Cara Christ, the Arizona Department of Health Services director, said in a briefing on Friday, “I am fearful with the decreased demand it’s going to be harder to reach that 70%, but I am hopeful Arizona will.”
Christ has promoted vaccinating children and teens even though there is no evidence that they are at serious risk from the disease.
by AZ Free News | Jun 5, 2021 | News
The Phoenix Police Department released late this week, a touching tribute to fallen Phoenix Police Officer Ginarro New. Officer New, age 27, who was killed by a red light runner on May 31.
Officer New is survived by his wife Kristen, his mother, Misty, his brother, Marcas, and his grandmother, Susan.
The crash that took the life of Officer New occurred in north Phoenix at around 10:30 p.m., near Cave Creek Road and Greenway Parkway.
Governor Doug Ducey ordered flags at all state buildings be lowered to half-staff until sunset on Tuesday, June 1, 2021.
by B. Hamilton | Jun 3, 2021 | News
By B. Hamilton |
Rep. Reginald Bolding’s demand that the National Football League (NFL) reject Arizona as the site for future Super Bowls because legislators have dared to pass election integrity reforms have apparently been ignored. On Wednesday, the City of Glendale and the NFL announced that Super Bowl LVII will be played at State Farm Stadium on Sunday, February 12, 2023.
The Super Bowl is the annual championship game of the NFL. It has served as the final game of every NFL season since 1966.
As previously reported by AZ Free News, Bolding broached the issue in a May 11 letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell on the same day the Senate passed SB1485, a bill which could remove more than 100,000 names from the early voting list of voters who continually fail to utilize the early ballot option.
RELATED ARTICLE: Rep. Bolding Raises Possibility Of NFL Pulling Super Bowl LVII From Arizona
According to the economic study cited in the AZ Free News report, after last year’s Super Bowl LIV in Miami showed that visitor spending -including spectators, media, teams, and NFL – brought in nearly $250 million to the Greater Miami area. There were also millions in short term labor income, and a $34 million bump in local and state tax revenues connected to the event.
by B. Hamilton | Jun 3, 2021 | News
By B. Hamilton |
On Wednesday, not only did hundreds of protesters let their concerns about the federal government’s plan to convert a Scottsdale hotel into a migrant detention center be known, but Arizona’s Attorney General did as well.
A crowd of approximately 600 protesters turned out in front of the former Homewood Suites hotel which is just one of many properties included in an $80 million-plus contract Endeavors has with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The hotel-turned detention center is near residential and commercial properties as well as a high school.
Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich sent a letter to the hotel’s lender and borrower expressing “grave concerns about whether a detention facility is an appropriate and legal use” of the property.
“I am further writing to express public safety concerns about the decision to establish this 1,200-person detention facility at the hotel property,” the Attorney General wrote.
Brnovich shares the concerns of the community that there is no guarantee the migrants will not be released into the upscale community which has little access to social services.
The appropriateness of placing a detention center in the middle of town is not the only issue. The Arizona Attorney General noted in his letter that even the “lender, who stands to potentially receive some of the revenues from this contract, has itself voiced concerns that this dramatic change in use would require rezoning the property or at a minimum obtaining a variance.”
Currently the case is in federal court. However, Alexander Kolodin, a well known Republican attorney, told the AZ Free News, that he hopes someone will challenge the ICE decision in state court on federalism and separation of powers grounds. “The Arizona Supreme Court would love to sink their teeth into this one.”
Attorney General letter:
Brian C. Lake
David M. Neff
Perkins Coie LLP
2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000
Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2788
Randy Nussbaum
Philip R. Rudd
Sacks Tierney P.A.
4250 North Drinkwater Blvd., 4th Floor
Scottsdale, Arizona 85251-3693
I understand that you represent the lender and borrower for a property at North Scottsdale Road and East Mountain View Road in Scottsdale (the “Hotel Property”), which is currently the subject of a dispute over being potentially converted into an under 72-hour ICE detention facility for housing up to 1,200 adult and minor migrants.
I am writing to express grave concerns about whether a detention facility is an appropriate and Legal use of the Hotel Property, particularly in light of information that my office recently learned through a court-ordered deposition of the Deputy Director of the ICE Phoenix Field Office, Albert Carter. I am further writing to express public safety concerns about the decision to establish this 1,200-person detention facility at the Hotel Property. The root causes of the current crisis are problems of the Biden Administration’s own making, including policies that have administratively and intentionally crippled ICE’s important law enforcement mission and incentivized illegal immigration. While everyone rightly expects that migrants should be treated humanely, a new detention facility at the Hotel Property should not be established.
First, regardless of how well-intentioned everyone involved is detention facilities inherently carry some risk that one or more individuals who pose a public safety threat are going to be housed there and potentially leave the premises. As outlined in the lender’s Verified Complaint:
The ICE/DHS Contract provides that the hotel on the Property will cease being operated as a hotel and will instead be operated as an ICE/DHS detention center for immigrant families being held in ICE custody who are awaiting deportation, continued custody, or release determinations by ICE, DHS or the Department of Justice.
The ICE/DHS Contract leaves no doubt that the Property will in fact be operated as an ICE detention center, securing and holding all of the individuals who stay there in government custody at all times, day and night. For example, the ICE/DHS Contract states that “[a]all residents will be in the legal custody of ICE, therefore they can only be released at the direction of ICE” (id. at 60, § 2), and “[a]t all times, individuals comprising family units shall remain in the legal custody office, irrespective of residential services provided by Service Provider.” Id. at 62, § 5(a)(iii), (xi). The ICE/DHS Contract also requires that those providing services at the Prope11y “shall structure all programs and implement strategies designed to ensure residents remain within the residential setting to include, if necessary, consequences for depa11ing without authorization.” Id. at 62, § 5(a)(xi).”
This is consistent with the deposition testimony of Director Carter, who testified that ICE “detention facilities are broken down in multiple ways for immigration purposes. There is an over 72-hour facility where individuals are housed for longer term. But there are also under 72- hour facilities that are generally managed through intergovernmental service agreements that would also be included.” Mr. Carter’s testimony confirms that what is being established is a type of detention facility, not a hotel.
Mr. Carter also provided examples of some of the under 72-hour facilities in Arizona including facilities managed by the Coconino County Sheriff’s Office, La Paz County Sheriff’s Office, Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office, and the San Luis Detention Center.4 While there was one hotel-the Holiday Inn Express & Suites Phoenix/Chandler-according to the ICE detention data, the average length of stay was only 2 days, and only 2 detainees were being housed there, compared to up to 1,200 contemplated for the Hotel Property.
Second, there is no guarantee that housing 1,200 detainees in this area would not result in some of them being released into the community. ICE has adopted irresponsible “enforcement priorities” that administratively repeal almost all ICE enforcement. Those “enforcement priorities” notably do not include those who have previously been convicted of what the Biden Administration deems insufficiently serious crimes or those who have been charged but not convicted of a crime. Given this, if the prime contractor is unable to place particular detainees, it is foreseeable that ICE could simply release the detainee into the community because they do not fall within the Biden Administration’s extremely narrow “enforcement priorities.”
The State of Arizona and State of Montana recently filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Arizona challenging these enforcement priorities as arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law. The potential release of individuals from the detention facility at the Hotel Prope1ty only illustrates why the enforcement priorities are bad policy that is harmful to public safety. See Arizona and Montana v. Department of Homeland Security, No. 21-186 (D. Ariz.).
Third, based on the limited information available, this does not appear to be a good location for a 1,200-person detention facility in any event, and may well or at least should require a significant additional study by the local government before such a drastic change is implemented. The Hotel Property is adjacent to an apartment complex and near a senior living facility. It is also across the street from a residential neighborhood and another apartment complex. It is less than a block from a high school, less than one mile from a preschool, and less than two miles from a middle school.
The lender, who stands to potentially receive some of the revenues from this contract, has itself voiced concerns that this dramatic use change would require rezoning the property or at a minimum obtaining a variance. The Verified Complaint alleges:
On information and belief, using the Prope1ty in the manner stated in the ICE/DHS Contract would not be in compliance with existing City of Scottsdale zoning ordinances and/or other restrictive covenants governing the Property, and would therefore require a change to, or waiver or exemption from, the existing zoning ordinances and use permits, or would result in a violation of the existing zoning ordinances and use permits.
The Lender’s application for a temporary restraining order, similarly stated:
It is also very likely that Borrower’s conduct in agreeing to the ICE/DHS Contract and preparing to perform it violated the provisions in the Loan Agreement and Deed of Trust prohibiting Borrower from doing anything at the Prope1ty that might not comply with existing zoning ordinances and prohibiting Borrower from attempting to change the zoning ordinances or obtain an exception or variance from them. See Loan Agreement§ 5.18; Deed of Trust§ 3. Borrower has represented that a zoning change from the City of Scottsdale will be needed to convert the hotel on the Property into condominiums (and has not yet been obtained). In that case, it seems unlikely that the City of Scottsdale would allow the Property to change its use from a hotel to an ICE detention center without requiring even more drastic zoning changes or variances.
Fourth, despite obvious potential impacts from the establishment of the detention facility to the “human environment,” 42 U.S.C. §4332(C), DHS has not conducted any of the necessary environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) to study such impacts. See, e.g., Hanly v. Mitchell, 460 F.2d 640, 647 (2d Cir. 1972) (NEPA “must be construed to include protection of the quality of life for city residents. Noise, traffic, overburdened mass transportation systems, crime, congestion, and even availability of drugs all affect the urban ‘environment.”‘ (cleaned up)). Absent any such compliance efforts, the contract with DHS is likely invalid as a matter of law.
This violation of NEPA is part of a broader pattern of DHS failing to comply with NEPA concerning immigration and border control policies. Because of these other violations, I have filed suit against OHS and its officials in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. See Arizona v. 1\Mayorkas, No. 21-617 (D. Ariz. 2021).
For all of these reasons, I urge you not to go forward with converting the Hotel Property into a 1,200-person detention facility.
Scottsdale residents intend to protest at the site again Friday evening.
