by Terri Jo Neff | Mar 14, 2021 | News
By Terri Jo Neff |
A bill introduced by nearly one dozen legislators to require public bodies to provide the public with more information before discussing public matters in private under the guise of seeking “legal advice” is being strongly opposed by the very public officials who can currently conduct many discussions in secret.
Rep. Beverly Pingerelli (R-LD21) and 10 co-sponsors of HB2804 want to amend two statutes related to public meetings, executive sessions, and legal advice. Their bill passed the House last week and is now assigned to two Senate committees where its attempt to ensure more transparency in public meetings has garnered resistance from nearly every city and town, several elected school superintendents, and the County Supervisors Association of Arizona.
A public body is allowed by law to hold an executive session for the discussion, consideration, or consultation of only nine types of matters. One is to obtain “legal advice with the attorney or attorneys of the public body.”
Some officials claim they need flexibility at any time during a public meeting to move into a non-public executive session to obtain legal advice on any item on the agenda. That is why many public bodies utilize a generic disclaimer on every meeting agenda advising that the members may convene an executive session during the meeting with no further notice.
However, many citizens and public-transparency watchdogs have complained in recent years that public bodies are misusing the legal advice clause to privately discuss a variety of issues which could -and should- be discussed in public.
And that is where HB2804 comes in. The first thing it does is limit the situations in which legal advice can be used as reason for an executive session to the other eight subject matters permitted to be discussed in an executive session.
The bill would also require meeting agendas that include specific notice of any executive session under the legal advice clause to note which of the eight subject matters apply to the agenda item.
Such changes are long overdue, according to Diane Douglas, who served as Arizona’s Superintendent of Public Instruction from 2015 to 2018.
“The legal advice clause of the Executive Sessions statute -or the ‘get out of jail free’ clause as I call it- undermines the intent of Open Meeting Law,” Douglas told Arizona Daily Independent. “It should only be used very sparingly and only when a public discussion will compromise a negotiation, settlement, or an employee’s legally protected privacy.”
But Douglas says various public boards, commissions, committees, districts, as well as cities, towns, and counties currently end up discussing matters of public interest behind closed doors by “dragging an attorney in” even if the matters would otherwise be required to be discussed in public.
“Often times legal advice or discussion, that will not otherwise compromise a decision of the board, is of equal interest to the public being served,” Douglas said.
Douglas also notes there is already a simple solution for situations where an issue comes up during a meeting that requires legal advice, but an executive session has not been properly notice.
“Table the discussion and bring it back when proper executive session notice has been made,” she said.
The other eight types of subjects a public body is allowed to hold an executive session for include discussion, consideration, or consultation on matters of employment, assignment, or appointment; records exempt by law from public inspection; litigation and settlement discussions; contracts subject to negotiations; negotiations with employee organizations; international, interstate, city, town, tribal council or Indian reservation negotiations; school safety matters; and negotiations on the purchase, sale or lease of real property.
HB2804 would also require that any public body meetings related to the “goals and objectives” by which an officer, appointee, or employee of the public body will be evaluated “must be conducted in a public meeting.” However, any actual discussion or consideration about the person’s employment, assignment, or appointment would be done in private unless the person requests a public discussion.
by Loretta Hunnicutt | Mar 14, 2021 | News
By Lori Hunnicutt |
After having already received over $1 billion in CARES ACT ESSER and ESSER II funding for Arizona’s schools, Superintendent of Public Instruction Kathy Hoffman issued a publicly paid for press release to expressed her gratitude to Arizona’s democratic congressional delegation for the passage of the American Rescue Plan.
According to Hoffman, the Plan will provide nearly $2.6 billion dollars to Arizona for K-12 education, of which the Arizona Department of Education will allocate 90% of those funds directly to public schools.
“The latest round of federal relief and recovery dollars comes at a time of high need for Arizona’s schools and families as many prepare for a return to some degree of in-person learning. From teaching and learning to providing critical wrap around supports, over the past year, every Arizonan has seen just how essential our schools are to our communities,” said Hoffman in her press release. “I am grateful to the members of Arizona’s delegation who supported the American Rescue Plan, their advocacy and their votes are essential to our recovery as a state.”
As noted by Hoffman, schools are essential, and as a result, parents have gone in search of those essential service providers. Public school enrollment is down by approximately 38,000 students for the 2020-2021 school year compared to last year.
Despite the fact that the Arizona Department of Education released a report showing public school enrollment is declining dramatically, funding for schools is growing due to COVID by nearly the same dramatic rate.
ESSER allocations were only for Title I districts and were set by the federal government. Non title I districts did not receive a direct allocation from the federal government through the CARES act so the Department used its discretionary funds to ensure they had access to relief dollars, according to Richie Taylor with the Arizona Department of Education.
| TOP 20 ESSR RECEIPIENTS |
TOP 20 ESSR II RECEIPIENTS |
| LEA NAME |
ESSER Fund Allocation |
ESSER II Allocation |
TOTAL |
| Tucson Unified District |
$18,558,099.29 |
$76,396,636.50 |
$94,954,735.79 |
| Mesa Unified District |
$17,062,873.58 |
$70,241,361.27 |
$87,304,234.85 |
| Phoenix Union High School District |
$11,993,688.79 |
$49,373,455.48 |
$61,367,144.27 |
| Cartwright Elementary District |
$7,999,141.31 |
$32,929,422.74 |
$40,928,564.05 |
| Washington Elementary School District |
$7,318,952.59 |
$30,129,344.49 |
$37,448,297.08 |
| Alhambra Elementary District |
$6,507,560.37 |
$26,789,151.34 |
$33,296,711.71 |
| Sunnyside Unified District |
$5,721,902.88 |
$23,554,897.94 |
$29,276,800.82 |
| Glendale Elementary District |
$4,804,642.37 |
$19,778,885.64 |
$24,583,528.01 |
| Roosevelt Elementary District |
$4,701,263.40 |
$19,329,140.54 |
$24,030,403.94 |
| Paradise Valley Unified District |
$4,513,659.06 |
$18,581,882.84 |
$23,095,541.90 |
| Phoenix Elementary District |
$4,420,353.51 |
$17,741,161.13 |
$22,161,514.64 |
| Peoria Unified School District |
$4,230,397.55 |
$17,414,938.09 |
$21,645,335.64 |
| Glendale Union High School District |
$4,163,991.22 |
$17,141,568.48 |
$21,305,559.70 |
| Dysart Unified District |
$3,914,351.21 |
$16,114,569.28 |
$20,028,920.49 |
| Isaac Elementary District |
$3,839,593.72 |
$15,565,659.76 |
$19,405,253.48 |
| Deer Valley Unified District |
$3,656,154.10 |
$15,072,832.22 |
$18,728,986.32 |
| Chandler Unified District #80 |
$3,276,351.66 |
$13,574,728.96 |
$16,851,080.62 |
| Creighton Elementary District |
$3,317,717.18 |
$13,452,995.34 |
$16,770,712.52 |
| Amphitheater Unified District |
$3,173,678.01 |
$13,002,600.04 |
$16,176,278.05 |
| TOP 50 ESSR RECEIPIENTS |
TOP 50 ESSR II RECEIPIENTS |
| LEA NAME |
ESSER Fund Allocation |
LEA NAME |
ESSER II Allocation |
| Tucson Unified District |
$18,558,099.29 |
Tucson Unified District |
$76,396,636.50 |
| Mesa Unified District |
$17,062,873.58 |
Mesa Unified District |
$70,241,361.27 |
| Phoenix Union High School District |
$11,993,688.79 |
Phoenix Union High School District |
$49,373,455.48 |
| Cartwright Elementary District |
$7,999,141.31 |
Cartwright Elementary District |
$32,929,422.74 |
| Washington Elementary School District |
$7,318,952.59 |
Washington Elementary School District |
$30,129,344.49 |
| Alhambra Elementary District |
$6,507,560.37 |
Alhambra Elementary District |
$26,789,151.34 |
| Sunnyside Unified District |
$5,721,902.88 |
Sunnyside Unified District |
$23,554,897.94 |
| Glendale Elementary District |
$4,804,642.37 |
Glendale Elementary District |
$19,778,885.64 |
| Roosevelt Elementary District |
$4,701,263.40 |
Roosevelt Elementary District |
$19,329,140.54 |
| Paradise Valley Unified District |
$4,513,659.06 |
Paradise Valley Unified District |
$18,581,882.84 |
| Phoenix Elementary District |
$4,420,353.51 |
Phoenix Elementary District |
$17,741,161.13 |
| Peoria Unified School District |
$4,230,397.55 |
Peoria Unified School District |
$17,414,938.09 |
| Glendale Union High School District |
$4,163,991.22 |
Glendale Union High School District |
$17,141,568.48 |
| Dysart Unified District |
$3,914,351.21 |
Dysart Unified District |
$16,114,569.28 |
| Isaac Elementary District |
$3,839,593.72 |
Isaac Elementary District |
$15,565,659.76 |
| Deer Valley Unified District |
$3,656,154.10 |
Deer Valley Unified District |
$15,072,832.22 |
| Creighton Elementary District |
$3,317,717.18 |
Chandler Unified District #80 |
$13,574,728.96 |
| Chandler Unified District #80 |
$3,276,351.66 |
Creighton Elementary District |
$13,452,995.34 |
| Amphitheater Unified District |
$3,173,678.01 |
Amphitheater Unified District |
$13,002,600.04 |
| Tempe School District |
$2,599,800.98 |
Yuma Union High School District |
$10,524,843.43 |
| Yuma Union High School District |
$2,556,671.32 |
Chinle Unified District |
$10,485,054.40 |
| Gilbert Unified District |
$2,361,129.01 |
Tempe School District |
$10,097,765.41 |
| Chinle Unified District |
$2,311,140.03 |
Gilbert Unified District |
$9,719,870.46 |
| Pendergast Elementary District |
$2,051,218.76 |
Academy of Mathematics and Science South, Inc. |
$8,669,827.51 |
| Scottsdale Unified District |
$2,039,036.15 |
Pendergast Elementary District |
$8,495,439.77 |
| Yuma Elementary District |
$1,987,817.13 |
Scottsdale Unified District |
$8,428,712.94 |
| Academy of Mathematics and Science South, Inc. |
$1,936,851.39 |
Yuma Elementary District |
$8,183,087.04 |
| Douglas Unified District |
$1,912,733.71 |
Douglas Unified District |
$7,873,997.23 |
| Nogales Unified District |
$1,864,660.69 |
Nogales Unified District |
$7,676,098.84 |
| Tolleson Union High School District |
$1,839,218.99 |
Tolleson Union High School District |
$7,571,365.40 |
| Casa Grande Elementary District |
$1,718,113.97 |
Casa Grande Elementary District |
$7,072,934.77 |
| Balsz Elementary District |
$1,649,049.88 |
Kingman Unified School District |
$6,767,033.37 |
| Kingman Unified School District |
$1,643,832.54 |
Fowler Elementary District |
$6,728,290.92 |
| Fowler Elementary District |
$1,634,421.24 |
Balsz Elementary District |
$6,676,508.92 |
| Florence Unified School District |
$1,591,119.78 |
Florence Unified School District |
$6,608,113.68 |
| Flagstaff Unified District |
$1,571,344.58 |
Whiteriver Unified District |
$6,545,727.43 |
| Sierra Vista Unified District |
$1,446,034.29 |
Kayenta Unified District |
$6,308,720.55 |
| Whiteriver Unified District |
$1,320,524.94 |
Flagstaff Unified District |
$6,137,515.48 |
| Gadsden Elementary District |
$1,305,353.14 |
Sierra Vista Unified District |
$5,507,013.62 |
| Coolidge Unified District |
$1,301,824.05 |
Gadsden Elementary District |
$5,373,642.41 |
| Apache Junction Unified District |
$1,289,942.00 |
Flowing Wells Unified District |
$5,237,156.31 |
| Flowing Wells Unified District |
$1,261,038.47 |
American Leadership Academy, Inc. |
$5,169,312.09 |
| Osborn Elementary District |
$1,249,531.15 |
Apache Junction Unified District |
$5,111,069.81 |
| Crane Elementary District |
$1,195,318.52 |
Coolidge Unified District |
$4,983,582.74 |
| Kayenta Unified District |
$1,189,663.56 |
Crane Elementary District |
$4,920,671.69 |
| Murphy Elementary District |
$1,169,915.43 |
Humboldt Unified District |
$4,801,577.92 |
| Humboldt Unified District |
$1,166,388.53 |
Marana Unified District |
$4,777,558.60 |
| Marana Unified District |
$1,151,547.40 |
Avondale Elementary District |
$4,761,816.09 |
| Avondale Elementary District |
$1,149,022.62 |
Osborn Elementary District |
$4,751,065.08 |
While multiple studies show that students are suffering greatly from school closures including increased anxiety and even suicide, Hoffman has been nearly silent on the subject of student mental health and what programs might be developed with the millions in surplus monies not allocated to schools to improve students’ mental and intellectual well-being.
by Terri Jo Neff | Mar 12, 2021 | News
By Terri Jo Neff |
A bill to limit the state’s 15 county recorders to participating in voter registration events only on government-owned locations appears to have died following pushback from election officials, including Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs.
RELATED ARTICLE: Reagan Promotional Voter Registration Ads Showing up In Mexico
SB1358 would amend state law to ban county recorders, who are elected to office, from engaging in voter registration events at any “location, facility or property” that is not government owned. However, the bill introduced by Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita (R-LD23) has been mired in the Senate since Feb. 24.
ARS 16-134 currently requires a county recorders to make voter registration forms available free of charge at locations “throughout the county such as government offices, fire stations, public libraries and other locations open to the general public.” It also requires recorders to provide a voter registration form to any qualified person who makes such a request.
For years county recorders have utilized large-attendance events to help reach as many new voters as possible to maximize the return of their time and expense.
But Ugenti-Rita’s would restrict the elected county recorders from conducting voter registration activities at places like churches and synagogues, nursing homes, private colleges, homeowner association centers, American Legion halls, even shopping malls. And if the local county fair is held at property owned by a nonprofit group instead of the county, then that would be a no-no as well.
“I have seen where we’ve had a recorder who likes to frequent certain kinds of events at the exclusion of others,” Ugenti-Rita said during a meeting of the Senate Committee on Government, which she chairs. “We want to make sure we’re hitting all voters and not just setting up voter registration at certain events that may more align with our political views than others.”
Even if SB1358 were to pass out of the Senate its prospects for passing the House are uncertain due to strong opposition from the majority of the elected county recorders as well as the Arizona Association of Counties.
by AZ Free News | Mar 12, 2021 | News
On Thursday, as the Biden administration hints at increased restrictions on Second Amendment rights, Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar and U.S. Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith introduced the GRIP Act. The Act would prohibit states, localities, or any other organization from using federal funding to maintain gun registries.
There are 41 original cosponsors of the House measure including Rep. Andy Biggs and Rep. David Schweikert.
The GRIP Act (Gun-owner Registration Information Protection Act) would, according to Gosar, clarify existing law that prohibits the use of any federal funding by states or local entities to store or list sensitive, personal information related to the legal ownership or possession of firearms.
The legislation is in response to states that in recent years enacted statutes requiring gun owners to register their handguns.
Current law prevents the federal government from storing information acquired during the firearms background process. The GRIP Act would ensure the federal government does not support, either intentionally or otherwise, state or local efforts to collect and store personally identifiable information related to legal firearm purchases and ownership.
This legislation further clarifies that states and local entities cannot use federal grant funds from programs, such as the National Criminal Histories Improvement Program, NICS Amendment Records Improvement Program, or the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, to create or maintain full or partial gun registries.
The measure does not include any limitations related to state recordkeeping for permitting, law enforcement-issued firearms, or lost or stolen firearms.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) supports the bill.
“On behalf of our more than 5 million members, the National Rifle Association thanks Senator Hyde-Smith and Congressman Gosar for introducing this important piece of legislation to prevent the use of federal funds to create a national gun owner registry. Biden-Pelosi-Schumer and their gun control cohorts have longed for the disarming of America, and a national gun registry is a dangerous step towards reaching that goal,” said Jason Ouimet, executive director, NRA Institute for Legislative Action.
by Corinne Murdock | Mar 11, 2021 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
The Arizona House is now considering whether petition signatures should be rendered void if the signer didn’t listen to or read the description. The Senate passed SB1531 on Monday in a tight, party-line vote of 16-14. State Senator J.D. Mesnard (R-Chandler) introduced the bill, with State Senator Vince Leach (R-Tucson) as the co-sponsor.
Petition descriptions can measure up to 100 words, per the law. If passed by the House, petition circulators would have to either offer to read the petition aloud to each potential signer, or allow the potential signer “sufficient time” to read the description. To further ensure that the potential signer is aware of this requirement, the petition itself must state that the description must be either heard or read. The circulator must also make the person signing aware of that requirement. Circulators would also be required to ask the individuals to confirm that they heard or read the description, as well as that they understood the description before signing.
In the event that an individual doesn’t hear or read the description, then the circulator would be required to void that signature. The Secretary of State would review the submitted petition and remove all voided signatures from it.
Although the bill didn’t mention any repercussions or further checks in place that would apply to circulators who don’t follow it, current law does require that circulators sign an affidavit swearing to the validity of the petition signatures.
One failed amendment by State Senator Juan Mendez (D-Tempe) would have extended the reach of the proposed bill to include petitions for nominating candidates.
During the Senate Government hearing, Mesnard explained that this bill is necessary because petitioners will lie to signers about what their petition constitutes. He described the “common practice” of circulators employing a sort of bait-and-switch tactic, pressuring an individual to sign a petition they may not fully be in agreement with. Mesnard called the method a “drive-by signature gathering.”
“They only know what the petition gatherer tells them. So what this is saying is that they’ve got to tell them what’s in it, like, read the summary not, you know, give their own spin on the thing,” explained Mesnard.
Arizona already requires that petition circulators disclose whether they are paid or not. However, there aren’t laws preventing circulators from unintentionally or intentionally misleading potential signers on what a petition actually constitutes.
Opposition to the bill argued that it created unnecessary hurdles for citizens to engage in the legislative process.
During the final vote, State Senator Jamescita Pehlakai (D-Window Rock) stated that this bill would pose obstacles to democracy. She cited the hardships imposed to get petitions to citizens in districts such as hers, which would take a significant amount of time to travel. Pehlakai added that non-English speakers might have issues with understanding, reading, or listening to the description.
“This is one of those bills that I guess in seeking to have folks be informed of what they’re signing actually does the exact opposite,” stated Pehlakai. “A lot of the people are really informed, so when they see me with my table and my canopy. They might already know the issues and want to sign. This would take so much more time depending on what needs to be read to them[.]”
State Senator Kirsten Engel (D-Tucson) suggested that reading or hearing the description wasn’t necessary for a voter’s understanding. She stated that this bill would come across as lecturing the voters and “treating them like two-year-olds.”
“I find that very paternalistic. It’s not up to us to decide when a voter has sufficient information about something, and it’s certainly not up to us to deputize the circulator to make that determination,” stated Engel.
Steele alluded that this bill to require more information be presented readily to potential petition signers imposed limitations on individuals’ ability to vote.
“So, this morning I heard the words of President Joe Biden. And, they’re so beautiful and so simple, and usually some of the wisest things we hear come in a very simplistic phrase,” stated Victoria Steele (D-Tucson). “‘If you have the best ideas, you have nothing to hide. Let more people vote.’”
The House is now considering the bill. It was assigned to committee on Wednesday.
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 AZ Free News | Mar 11, 2021 | News
PHOENIX – A group of Arizona legislators penned a letter to Governor Doug Ducey urging him to make people in the Arizona Long Term Care System a priority when it comes to to receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.
In the letter, the group of lawmakers came together in bipartisan fashion to praise Ducey and his team for their “demonstrated a willingness to learn and adapt during the vaccine distribution process.”
Dear Governor Ducey,
We want to start by thanking you for your leadership in getting the COVID-19 vaccine in the arms of Arizonans. While it has not been perfect, your team has demonstrated a willingness to learn and adapt during the vaccine distribution process to ensure Arizonans are vaccinated as quickly as possible. In fact, news reports recently stated that Arizona’s vaccine distribution grade went from a “C” last month to an “A” this month according to a report card by Harvard researchers. Under your leadership and in conjunction with our county partners, 1,442,915 Arizonans have received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine and 828,315 Arizonans have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19.
Unfortunately, it has come to our attention that a recent change to the vaccine prioritization has resulted in further delaying one of the most vulnerable populations from receiving the vaccine. Now that the prioritization approach determines eligibility based on age or essential worker status, those who are part of the Arizona Long Term Care System (ALTCS) that reside at home who may not be eligible based on their age are forced to the end of the line. Considering these individuals are at a higher risk of contracting and getting sick from COVID-19, we respectfully ask you to consider strategies to get these individuals vaccinated as quickly as possible so they can resume their lives and reinstate social connectedness without fear of contracting the virus. These people, as we feel you understand have a high need for person to person contact as in one of your executive orders maintained that public school districts had to maintain an onsite educational opportunity for these individuals during the pandemic.
We understand there have been many challenges throughout this public health emergency, and yet you have demonstrated compassion for the most vulnerable. We also understand this issue is likely an oversight that can be easily addressed. This group of individuals were scheduled for 1C in vaccinations and right before there opportunity the change in eligibility by age moved them to the bottom. We ask you to please consider our request to address this and let us know how we can be of any assistance in doing so.
Respectfully,
Representative David Cook, Legislative District 8
Representative Brenda Barton, Legislative District 6
Representative Kevin Payne, Legislative District 21
Representative Mark Finchem, Legislative District 11
Representative Joel John, Representative, District 4
Representative Beverly Pingerelli, Legislative District 21
Representative Cesar Chavez, Legislative District 29
Representative Domingo DeGrazia, Legislative District 10
Representative Jennifer Longdon, Legislative District 24
Representative Quang Nguyen, Legislative District 1
Representative Justin Wilmeth, Legislative District 15
Representative Amish Shah, Legislative District 24
Representative Diego Rodriguez, Legislative District 27
