by Corinne Murdock | Mar 19, 2021 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
Arizona’s sentiments on Big Tech’s influence are largely negative, according to a recent study of bipartisan voters across the state. What’s more, a majority of respondents want regulations placed on Big Tech immediately.
Data Orbital, a data analysis and political consulting firm, launched a study last week to get the pulse on Arizona’s perspective on Big Tech and current legislation to regulate it. Researchers surveyed 550 voters and found an abundance of concern over Big Tech’s influence. Over 80 percent of respondents agreed that Big Tech’s power over citizens’ lives is too great. Over 77 percent of individuals further characterized tech companies as self-interested monopolies opposed to small businesses and individuals.
Out of all respondents, nearly 64 percent believed that Arizona should regulate Big Tech’s influence. A few more of those respondents believed that Arizona’s legislature should take action as soon as possible -not wait for D.C. lawmakers to step in.
Specifically, respondents voiced support for HB 2005, a bill to break up Big Tech’s app payment monopoly. Many app platforms require developers to use their payment systems and pay a service fee ranging anywhere from 15 to 30 percent. The legislation would only target platforms that have over 1 million downloads a year, and extend to Arizona-based developers or users. As it stands, Apple and Google are the companies that would be affected by this bill.
Data Orbital published these findings as HB 2005 awaits consideration in the Senate. It passed in the House on March 3.
Big Tech was quick to respond to the threat posed by HB 2005. Lobbyists swarmed the Capitol as soon as they caught wind of State Representative Regina Cobb’s (R-Kingman) intent to introduce the bill. They have argued that the bill was unfair – it would make Apple and Google provide its services to developers and users for free.
Other Big Tech companies concurred with those lobbyist arguments. Twitter Head of Consumer Product Kayvon Beykpour asserted that the commission fees are necessary to run a smooth and ordered system.
“This isn’t just a highway tax,” stated Beykpour. “There’s a lot of cost and effort involved in building these ecosystems that allow you to accept payments, and there’s a lot of fraud or risk involved in the whole customer service flow around refunds. A lot of that is taken off [the consumer’s] plate.”
During the House floor’s final vote on the bill, Cobb’s rebuttal against these arguments was that the “big guys” aren’t having to bear the burden of these commission fees. She pointed out that Big Tech has a monopoly on the market, and noted that there weren’t any legislators in the room without an Apple or Android phone.
“If you have a space, you charge for the space. Well, the big guys are not getting charged for that space,” stated Cobb. “They get charged zero. These 16 percent get charged 30 [percent]. Anything with a million or less that [has] revenues gets charged 15 percent. But if you’re between that million – which is the very small guy – and now up there to that very top guy, that’s that 30 percent. So the equity is not there.”
Other proponents of the bill, such as the Coalition for App Fairness (CAF), add that the bill would allow businesses to innovate. They claim that Big Tech stifles healthy competition and growth.
“Through HB 2005, Arizona is building bipartisan momentum to provide more consumer freedom, lower costs, and increase developer’s ability to thrive and innovate,” stated CAF Executive Director Meghan DiMuzio.
Although HB 2005 has been assigned to committee in the Senate, no action has been taken yet.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 19, 2021 | News
An amendment offered by State Rep. Shawnna LM Bolick that would delay the state income tax return filing deadline will be considered by the House Ways and Means Committee on Wednesday, March 24.
Bolick says her amendment to SB 1297 will provide uniformity with federal tax filing deadlines.
The Internal Revenue Service announced this week it has postponed this year’s April 15 deadline for filing federal income tax returns to May 17, citing the COVID-19 pandemic and recent changes in tax law. Arizona’s current state tax deadline is April 15.
“Arizonans should not be rushed to files their state taxes while they still have time to file their federal taxes,” said Bolick in a press release. “Arizona income tax filings are often dependent on the federal adjusted gross income – a figure only determined once you file your federal taxes. So, having the state deadline fall prior to the federal deadline doesn’t make a whole lot of sense and would only be cumbersome for state filers. Which is why I introduced language to postpone Arizona’s filing deadline for this year to mirror what the federal
deadline.”
by Terri Jo Neff | Mar 18, 2021 | News
By Terri Jo Neff |
A Maricopa County judge is expected to rule soon on one of two lawsuits involving the authority of the director of the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) to refuse to sign a fingerprint clearance card for a Chandler man with a history of questionable conduct with children.
The lawsuits involve an effort by Brett James Smith to obtain the clearance card, which is required for many paid and volunteer positions in which adults work with children. Arizona currently lists 52 circumstances under which a fingerprint clearance card is necessary as a condition of licensure, certification, employment, or volunteer activity.
In 2019, DPS denied Smith’s application for a card due to his criminal history in multiple states. Smith, who had changed his name from Brett James Zagorac, then appealed to the Arizona Board of Fingerprinting. The board can approve two types of exceptions, including a good-cause exception for individuals whose fingerprint clearance card was denied or suspended by DPS.
The fingerprint board members represent the Department of Child Safety, the Department of Economic Security, Department of Health Services, Department of Juvenile Corrections, Arizona State Board of Education, and the Administrative Office of the Courts. They approved Smith’s good cause exception in January 2020 after a recommendation from a state administrative law judge (ALJ).
But in April 2020, Smith sued DPS Colonel Heston Silbert when the director refused to sign the card despite the board’s exception. That case is on hold while a special action lawsuit filed by Silbert in June is being heard by Judge Pamela Gates.
“He’d been arrested no less than, that we know of, 10 times, for crimes involving inappropriate touching and interactions with children, up to and including child molestation, and had actually done some jail time over it,” Silbert said after filing the lawsuit. “I have a responsibility to the citizens of Arizona, and certainly to the children of Arizona, to do my very best to ensure they’re safe.”
Smith’s testimony to the ALJ purportedly included comments that his previous conduct -and contact- with children was not of a sexual nature nor done for a sexual motivation. A statement later released by an attorney for Smith accused DPS of “smearing Mr. Smith’s name in the media.”
Silbert’s lawsuit contends the board exceeded its authority in granting Smith’s exception. But in a twist, the board is now arguing that Smith’s application should be reconsidered due to new concerns that he presented false or misleading information and even lied to the ALJ during testimony.
Gates is awaiting final written arguments from the parties so she can rule next month on two pending motions which could lead to the dismissal of Smith’s initial lawsuit. Silbert is represented by attorney Lawrence Wulkan of Stinson LLP, an arrangement necessitated by the fact the Arizona Attorney General’s Office usually provides legal advice for the fingerprinting board.
After Silbert’s lawsuit was announced in June, the Chandler Police Department received six complaints concerning Smith. It has also been reported that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office has opened its own investigation.
One of the Chandler complaints involves a parent who hired Smith last spring to work as a tutor with her young son. Smith was no longer working with the boy in June when the mother heard about Silbert’s lawsuit.
The mother provided investigations with “nanny cam” video of all the times Smith was in the family’s home. At least one video revealed an incident in which Smith made physical contact with the boy, the mother reported.
The second exception the fingerprinting board can approve involves the Central Registry, a set of databases maintained by the Arizona Department of Child Safety of individuals who have had “substantiated allegations of child abuse or neglect.” An applicant disqualified for a clearance card based on a Central Registry report may apply to show the board that the applicant is rehabilitated and not a recidivist.
by B. Hamilton | Mar 18, 2021 | News
By B. Hamilton |
A bill in honor of Adrio Romine, a 17-year-old who tragically took his life after an adult on the internet encouraged and advised him to do so, was signed by Governor Doug Ducey on Tuesday.
Shortly after Adrio’s death, his mother, Paolla Jordan, learned the individual gave her son specific instructions on how to end his life — but no law was broken at the time. Paolla pushed legislation to change that, resulting in the development of HB2459.
The Governor signed the bill in the presence of Paolla Jordan and the bill’s sponsor, Representative Jeff Weninger.
“Our hearts are with Paolla, her family and all Arizonans who have suffered the loss of a loved one to suicide,” said Weninger in a press release. “HB2459 penalizes individuals who encourage minors in a vulnerable state, and it will help protect young Arizonans and their families. I was honored to work on this legislation with Paolla and offer support to those facing difficulties with mental health.”
“I hope that no other parent has to go through what our family experienced,” said Paolla. “There are dangerous people out there that can prey on our children on the internet. Today there is a consequence for a predator’s actions. This law will help protect our children today. I was proud to work with Representative Weninger on getting HB2459 Laloboy Act through the finish line, and I am grateful to everyone working to protect children facing suicidal thoughts.”
by Terri Jo Neff | Mar 16, 2021 | News
By Terri Jo Neff |
Cochise County Sheriff Mark Dannels has taken part in a number of media interviews in recent weeks about the growing influx of illegal border crossers coming in from Mexico, and it is clear who he blames for the uncontrolled public health and public safety situation getting worse by the day.
“The border patrol is no longer securing the border,” Dannels told KFYI’s James T. Harris on Monday. “What they’re doing is taking care of children and adults.”
Dannels told Harris that the White House is using a “very kind choice of words” when discussing the number of people trying to cross the 1,954-mile international border in the last few weeks. Words, the sheriff says, which are “in conflict with what is truly going on at the border.”
And that, the sheriff says, requires calling the situation at the country’s southwest border what it is – a crisis, not “a challenge” as a spokesperson for President Joe Biden recently called it.
According to Dannels, recent reports place the number of people trying to cross the southern border at 2,500 to 4,000 per day, with 400 to 500 of them being children. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) expects those numbers to hold steady for several weeks before it spikes as more migrants from South America make it through Central America and Mexico.
Dannels told Harris that he has seen no logistical support nor mitigation efforts coming out of Washington D.C., which he believes should concern all Americans, not just those in border states.
“When you fail to recognize a problem and you avoid it or ignore it, it only gets worse,” he said. “What happens on the southwest border doesn’t stay here, it migrates throughout the United States into communities throughout.”
Cochise County’s southern boundary shares more than 80 miles of the international border. Dannels has installed hundreds of surveillance cameras focused on the border and other remote areas of the county to supplement those in use by DHS agencies such as Customs & Border Protection and U.S. Border Patrol.
Earlier this month Dannels was interviewed live on Fox & Friends about Biden’s order in January which halted border wall construction, including one section of old fence the sheriff said was recently seeing “five or six groups” coming through every day.
The sheriff noted he and other sheriffs along the border were not briefed in advance about Biden’s wall construction order. There has also been a deafening silence about the border crisis from Senators Mark Kelly and Kyrsten Sinema, as well as national public health officials.
“Nobody is talking about what’s going on at the southwest border when it comes to the health pandemic in this country,” Dannels said during a March 5 interview on Fox & Friends. “And then you look at the public safety aspect of this, it’s upsetting.”
It is the same message Dannels shared a few days earlier in an interview with Fox News’ Your World program and then again March 8 on Fox’s American’s Newsroom show.
“Talking to my federal partners, talking to local law enforcement, talking to our health department – I mean when it comes to public safety, national security, when it comes to the health pandemic, we’re in trouble –we’re in serious trouble and this all started under the word politics,” he said March 8.
“When this administration failed to engage with my governor, my attorney general, our health departments, our emergency services coordinator- along with other border states and beyond- that’s when it started. So we’re trying to pick up the pieces right now.”
AZ Free News has confirmed Dannels is being suggested as a possible Republican candidate in 2022 when Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick’s seat in Congress comes open. Dannels said Monday he has been approached about running for various political offices, but he has not considered such a move as his current term runs through 2024.
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.
