March was Women’s History Month, but a quick perusal through Governor Katie Hobbs’ social media shows no mention of it.
Crickets.
I can only assume she was avoiding the backlash because she knows how the majority of Arizona voters feel about matters such as Women’s History Month.
It’s for women.
So much for being the party of women’s rights. Gov. Hobbs, a female governor, made it clear this week that she refuses to stand with women and, in doing so, she refuses to stand with Arizona voters.
Gov. Hobbs had a second chance to preserve women’s rights this year, but she vetoed HB2062, Arizona’s Stand With Women Act, an act that would have codified the original meaning of basic sex-based words like ‘woman’ and ‘female’ in order to ensure that women’s rights aren’t compromised by judicial activism and bureaucrats. It would have given power back to our elected representatives to decide how, and in which contexts, it is appropriate to separate citizens by sex.
Words matter. We can’t protect women if we can’t define ‘woman.’ I have a vested interest in making sure we do. I am a mother. I have two daughters. My first granddaughter is on the way. I am president of a public K-8 charter school where young girls come to learn.
Mother, daughter, granddaughter, grandmother, aunt, sister, girls … all words that will become meaningless if we don’t fight to stop our erasure. Activists say these words lack objective meaning. They say these words are defined by subjective feelings, rather than objective reality. The efforts of these activists to legally eradicate the difference between the sexes fundamentally erase women by depriving them of their dignity, safety, and well-being. Men and women are legally equal, but biologically different and as such should have a legal right to single-sex spaces. 86% of Americans (and even 83% of Democrats) agree. Gov. Hobbs is out of touch with the public and even those of her own party.
What about publicly collected data regarding males and females? Shouldn’t vital statistics—including statistics about matters such as violence against women—reflect biological truth? Imagine a world where all data used to promote public health, prevent crime, enforce civil rights laws, and ensure economic and social policy was subjective!
Most of the public focus on this issue has been on fairness in women’s sports, but this goes far beyond sports. Only two states—and not Arizona—ensure women’s prisons are only for women. In many states, men identifying as women, many of whom are violent sexual predators, have been transferred into women’s prisons. Unfortunately, many female inmates have already suffered physical and psychological damage as a result. This is why 91% of Americans, even 88% of Democrats, support single-sex prisons.
Women, including sexual assault survivors, are being told not to complain about having men undress next to them in their private spaces such as locker rooms. Men are invading female sororities, domestic violence shelters, and educational training programs that were created specifically to encourage women’s engagement.
What kind of a world are we setting up for the next generation if we close our eyes to this? My challenge to all Arizonans is this: make some serious noise and do not let up! Educate everyone you meet on what Gov. Hobbs has done to disadvantage women and take away our right to equal opportunity. Talk about this at church, at the gym, and yes, even in the workplace. I am convinced that once Arizonans understand the dangerous impact of this veto, they will have found their line in the sand and have the courage to do something about it.
Christy Narsi lives in Surprise, AZ. She is the national chapter director for Independent Women’s Network. Christy is passionate about developing and empowering women who make an impact in their communities.
Donald Trump has promised to create millions of new high-paying jobs.
One easy first step to doing that is to repeal Biden-regulations on America’s 4 million business partnerships (sometimes known as S-corporations) that are prolific job creators. The latest estimates find 10 million Americans employed by these business partnerships, with $800 billion paid in worker salaries and benefits.
For example, “95 percent of Microsoft’s commercial revenue flows directly through” its “partner ecosystem.” The profits from these enterprises are passed through to the 4 million partners, who make tax payments based on their share of those earnings.
These have been the tax rules governing partnerships for many decades. The Biden administration didn’t like the tax rules, so instead of asking Congress to change them, Biden’s Treasury Department worked through the back door to unilaterally modify the rules, as part of its “fairness” agenda.
The precise tax target is a technique used by partnerships to lower their tax liability called “basis shifting.” While technically complex (because everything with the U.S. tax code is complicated), it is also entirely legal and has been used by partnerships for decades to adjust the value of their assets during a transaction or transfer. Whatever one thinks of basis shifting, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) doesn’t have the unilateral authority to change the tax laws — only Congress does.
The Biden crackdown treated business partners as tax cheats. When they hired 87,000 agents to harass companies and individuals, nearly 4,000 of these IRS tax collectors were hired to among other things, “expand enforcement focusing on complex partnerships.”
The more than four million business partnerships became an overnight suspect class, as did the tax returns of millions of partners.
To pry money out of these partnerships, the Biden team wanted to create a retroactive tax (which should be illegal) by changing the rules and apply them going back six years in time. So a tax structure that may have been perfectly legal in the past could now trigger investigations, fines, and litigation.
Biden Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen also created a new investigative office to oversee and harass partnerships. That should be shutdown.
So a tax structure that may have been perfectly legal in the past could now trigger investigations, fines, and litigation.
More than 90% of partnerships are small businesses, according to an Ernst and Young study prepared for the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council) last year. The business partnership arrangement allows these firms to have ready access to needed capital to expand their operations. In all these companies generated $1.3 trillion to our GDP.
These partnership arrangements allow promising small companies to grow into large ones. This uniquely American business structure is a hallmark of U.S. entrepreneurial success — a path for businesses to go from good to great.
It isn’t broken. The system works. That’s why the Trump Treasury Department needs to immediately command the IRS to cease and desist the Biden witch hunt against these partnerships.
It’s a war on wealth. A war on U.S. businesses. And it’s a direct assault on the Trump promise to “make America great again.”
Stephen Moore is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, and a co-founder of Unleash Prosperity. His latest book co-authored with Arthur Laffer is “The Trump Economic Miracle.”
It was just about 2 years ago that a fury ran through the Mesa Public Schools community over a controversial document that had gone largely unnoticed. That document is titled “Support Plan for Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students” (also called “Guidelines for Support of Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students.”) This plan allows a student who “consistently asserts at school a gender identity that is different from the student’s sex assigned at birth” to “participate in such activities and access such facilities consistent with their gender identity.” (Notice there’s no mention of a parental consent requirement.) This means restrooms, locker rooms, and showers.
There were multiple concerns raised to district leadership regarding the plan. How would non-transgender students be protected and affirmed when someone of the opposite biological sex is now allowed to enter their private spaces such as bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers?
Numerous stories surfaced reporting females were not eating or drinking during the day to avoid having to use the restrooms, which they were now compelled to share with biological boys. Why was their “safe space” suddenly being violated? Why were they suddenly denied any expectation of privacy that matched their values? Why is there allowance in the document for the district to conceal a student’s transgender ideation and the district’s course of action affirming that ideation from their parents? Does this concealment violate ARS 1-601, Parents Rights Protected? Does this plan amount to providing behavioral health services as defined by the Arizona Behavioral Health Board? District leadership has successfully danced around providing clear, unambiguous answers to these questions. Why? What are they trying to hide from parents?
Even though Superintendent Dr. Andi Fourlis issued carefully worded, yet vague assurances to the contrary, there still remains within the plan/guidelines, allowances to NOT notify parents of their child’s transgender ideations as the district personnel provide “gender affirming care” for the child. A Public Records Request in early 2023 exposed a school counselor who was maintaining a spreadsheet of trans students along with notation as to whether parents knew.
This counselor was informing other staff how to avoid “outing” students to parents when speaking with them. The plan originally included a checkbox for the student to indicate if their parents were to be told.
Additionally, the plan expressly states that although changes to the student’s “preferred name/pronouns” may be made in district records, “parental consent is not required.”
At the governing board meeting on May 9, 2023, (begin at 3:35:25), board member Rachel Walden asked leadership, “What is the criteria for a student to be put on this Transgender Support Plan?”
District general counsel, Kasey King, responded “…there’s not specific criteria. It’s a student who’s requesting to use the restroom of their choice or to designate the pronouns or names of their choice. Also, as a tool to help the student and the school process how that information is going to be shared, IF AT ALL!”
It is student-initiated, primarily. Notice the complete absence of any parental involvement or even notification here.
Mrs. King continued, “I’m thinking at the younger grades, it might be a situation where the student simply starts asking for some accommodations. And as a way to make sure everybody is on the same page, their teacher or counselor might suggest they put it into writing.”
Are you following this? A student at the “younger grades” might ask for transgender accommodations from the school, and the teacher or counselor will suggest putting that student on a Transgender Support Plan! No parental consent or notification required. Mrs. Walden continued to press for transparency into what is occurring: “There’s nothing in these guidelines about notifying the parents. Isn’t there an opportunity for parental notification process in this?”
Mrs. King: “Parents always have the right under FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) to inspect and review their child’s education records.”
Mrs. Walden responded, “How would they know to ask that?”
Then-board President Marcie Hutchinson chimed in, “I guess they would ‘check in’ with the school.”
So, moms and dads, the only way to know for sure if your child has been placed on a Transgender Support Plan at Mesa Public Schools is for you to “check in with the school.” Since you don’t know the day that this might happen, I suggest you “check in” every day. Don’t expect to be notified otherwise. This is akin to child abuse in many people’s minds, yet the district refuses to make suitable provisions for parental notification, even to this day.
There is, in the old version of the plan/guidelines, a provision for parental notification “if changes are made in Synergy.” But apparently otherwise, mum’s the word.
OLD VERSION
The district has since revised the wording to make sure staff inform students “…that IF they request to change information in Synergy, parent(s) will be notified.”
When I see this, I read “SHHHH! Nobody has to know. Just don’t request a change in Synergy, and it’ll be our secret.”
The other concerning change explicitly states that parental/legal guardian consent “is not required” for a student to request district personnel provide gender affirming care to them.
These changes occurred in July 2024.
NEW VERSION
In a further assault on parental rights, the district has modified the guidelines from the verbiage previously, which stated, “Disclosing confidential student information to others may violate privacy laws” to a more intimidating and yet ambiguous, “Disclosing confidential student information to…parents…may violate privacy laws.”
Are teachers or counselors more likely or less likely to notify parents with this threat of violating privacy laws looming over their heads? I say less likely.
OLD VERSION
NEW VERSION
Then, as if that is not sufficient means for the district to usurp parental authority, Dr. Fourlis and Kacey King have now decided that the transgender plan/guidelines, which have for years resided on the Legal Services webpage on the district website, should be moved to a private internal location, away from public/parent access. When I asked the Governing Board President, Courtney Davis, why the district would make such a move as to lessen transparency, her answer allayed no concerns. “It was moved because it is a tool for school personnel to use to work with transgender students.”
It was always that Mrs. Davis! The only difference is, the public, and more importantly parents, no longer have access to documents describing what could potentially be happening to their child at Mesa Public Schools without their knowledge or consent.
After calling them out on this, Dr. Fourlis and Mrs. King have restored the document to the website, with an interesting change in title. They went from “Guidelines” to “Guidance.” Why that subtle change? For the record, contrary to the wording of Dr. Fourlis’ email, I did not request anything. I simply noted that hiding the document from public view was a “terrible decision.” Apparently, she agreed.
Interesting to note, since this document is considered a “guideline,” or now “guidance” and not a policy, it has not gone before the governing board for approval.
In an attempt to restore parental rights as defined under ARS 1-601, board member Sharon Benson proposed a policy at the April 8, 2025 board meeting which would require parental notification anytime a student indicated to a district employee any transgender ideations. During public comment (starts at 1:59:30), dozens of trans activists showed up in protest. Their overarching message was along the lines of, “If you ‘out’ students, they will be victims of abuse from their parents,” and “School personnel are much better equipped to deal with these issues than parents,” and “It’s not necessary for parents to know about their child’s mental distress.” All patently false statements.
Now, self-proclaimed members of the Communist and Socialist parties weighed in, trying to advance the narrative that children belong to the state, not parents (i.e. parents have no need to know about their child’s mental or emotional distress because the school is taking care of it). This is happening in Mesa folks! Are you paying attention?
It’s time to get involved. Attend district governing board meetings and make your voice heard. It’s critical that we stand for students and for parents.
Ed Steele is a husband, father, grandfather, and Mesa resident with a passion for helping the younger generation succeed in education.
Americans are getting fed up with their government. Why not remove some useless government-provided “stuff” from our lives? It would be cheap and easy.
For example, Daylight Savings Time (DST) can’t compete for attention with issues like inflation, immigration, and geopolitical threats, so it just hangs around. We would be better off without it.
DST was implemented during World War I to help conserve fuel and extend the working hours for which there was sunlight. Some of the early objections to DST were that it was a bad idea to tinker with God’s time and that it upset cows’ digestion to be fed earlier in the day. We blew past these, but no compelling replacement rationale for DST has ever developed.
Although it has been marketed as a fuel saving strategy, an Energy Department study in 2008 showed no effect on overall vehicle gas consumption attributable to DST. Other academic studies also found no benefit in crime statistics, travel times, or trade due to DST, while school and work attendance suffer slightly during the shifts.
Two states, Hawaii and most of Arizona, don’t observe DST anyway, so we have only to endure badly timed phone calls from the East Coast and remembering to adjust the times of televised sports broadcasts. Twenty states have petitioned to go on DST permanently but lack the required federal permission to do so. So, the semi-annual shifts persist as an unattractive irritant with little constituency, which exist mainly because of political inertia.
Then there’s our old friend, the humble penny. Americans have considerable nostalgia for the little guy: a penny saved is a penny earned and all that. Plus it has a picture of Lincoln on it. But cumulative inflation over the years has left the penny less than valueless. In 2024, it cost the U.S. 3.7 cents to produce and distribute a penny, something so colossally stupid only government could even contemplate it.
Moreover, pennies make cash transactions more cumbersome and thus more time-consuming. The average American makes about one cent every two seconds, so if it takes her more than two seconds to fish out and spend a penny, you’re losing money there too.
All these small injuries add up more than you might think. Last year, the U.S. minted 3.2 billion pennies, mostly because they are so worthless that they’re often not returned to circulation, ending up “under the couch cushions.” Do the math.
This is a true no-brainer. There isn’t a significant pro-penny political constituency, and it is logistically simple for Congress to simply order the U.S. Mint to stop making pennies. We eliminated the half-penny in 1857, and life went on. The retail economy is going over to credit cards anyway, so the nickel should also be slated for elimination before long.
HOV lanes were created in the 1970s and 80s in an effort to reduce the total number of cars on the road and (again) reduce fuel consumption. Their creation was part of the great surge of interest in reducing hydrocarbon emissions in the belief that eliminating greenhouse gases would be a feasible way to save the planet.
HOV lanes have never come close to achieving the anticipated result. According to the Reason Foundation, HOV lane miles have gone from 1,500 in 1985 to over 4,000 today. Yet carpooling among commuters dropped from 19.7% in 1980 to under 9% by 2019. The number of people who commute solo has actually risen from 64% to 80% in spite of all the inducements.
The massive investments in transit by our centralized transportation planners have also been fruitless, actually reducing the number of commuters using transit from 6.4% in 1980 to 5.0% in 2019.
Why have HOV lanes failed? Mostly because drivers just aren’t that interested. But enforcement is costly and ineffective. Studies have found that up to 84% of vehicles in HOV lanes are there illegally.
Moreover, during peak periods when freeways are slowed by overutilization, HOV lanes can contribute to the problem by taking a much needed but underutilized lane out of commission. The added freeway congestion meanwhile contributes to the emissions problem HOV lanes are supposed to ameliorate.
It’s time. Just do it.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
At the April 1 meeting of the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board, the main topic of discussion was once again the FY2025-2026 budget. As usual, SUSD Chief Financial Officer Shannon Crosier presented slides filled with numerous figures and did her best to put a positive spin on the information, carefully avoiding direct answers to the questions posed. At times, questions from Board Members Pittinsky and Sharkey seemed to include the answers, perhaps as a reminder of the narrative they were expected to follow.
However, the information presented made it clear that Superintendent Dr. Menzel is once again cutting teachers and instructional staff to deal with the financial impact of declining enrollment. Much of this decline can be traced back to his mismanagement of the district and the implementation of controversial policies like social-emotional learning (SEL), which critics argue undermine academic instruction and teacher morale.
Proponents of SEL, including Dr. Menzel, argue that by addressing students’ psychological challenges, academic achievement will follow. However, independent research, especially outside the U.S. teaching establishment, shows little evidence supporting this theory. You don’t need another study to confirm this; just look at the student proficiency scores in the Arizona Auditor General’s annual school district spending analysis report.
In FY24, SUSD spent 54.4% of its budget on instructional services, slightly below its peer group’s average of 55.2%. Over the past five years, spending on instruction in SUSD has dropped by 1.7%, while spending on student support has increased by 2.6%. During this period, SUSD’s enrollment has decreased by 8.4%, a trend that directly correlates with Dr. Menzel’s tenure. In the 2024 financial report, SUSD cut 59 instructional positions, added 71 student support positions, and increased the number of support and administrative roles by 44. As enrollment continues to fall, instructional spending declines, while support services and administrative costs rise. Yet, despite this shift in priorities, the effectiveness of SEL in improving academic performance has not been proven. Rather, the opposite is true.
For example, in FY24, in SUSD, only 55% of students passed the state math assessment, 61% passed English Language Arts (ELA), and just 41% passed science—an average drop of 12% since 2019. These results point to an inverse correlation between increased spending on support services and academic performance. This fact is well-documented in various unbiased studies.
Dr. Menzel, however, seems undeterred by the data, continuing his agenda of reducing instructional positions while increasing funding for social-emotional support services, including hiring more social workers and psychologists. All of this is happening despite clear declines in academic achievement.
At the meeting, it was apparent that Dr. Menzel has little regard for Board Members Carney and Werner’s requests for cost-cutting measures they made during the first budget meeting. In response to a question from Member Pittinsky about the possibility of future funding, Dr. Menzel stated, “There’s a path to land the plane to address those priorities of the board.” A “path” to address the Board’s priorities? The Governing Board is legally responsible for the district’s financial performance, and Dr. Menzel’s role is to present options that align with the Board’s priorities now, not at some unspecified future date based on potential additional funds.
Crosier claimed that the district had reviewed its costs carefully and had cut 13 positions from district-level departments. However, when questioned, she revealed that only one of those positions was not vacant and that no one had lost their job or experienced a reduction in force. So, how does this translate to cost savings?
When Member Carney inquired about her request for cuts to discretionary spending—such as travel, conferences, and consulting fees, Crosier had no answer. Carney also asked what steps she had taken to preserve the full-time assistant principal positions, which were requested by the Board, community members, and teachers alike. Once again, no answer.
Dr. Menzel’s disregard for the Board’s requests, coupled with his continued expansion of district staffing in non-instructional areas, raises serious concerns. One slide presented during the meeting, titled “Department Level Positions History – All Funds,” listed changes for FY25-26, but the data presented was incomplete and lacked the actual number of staff in each department. Showing the true staffing numbers would prompt uncomfortable questions, such as, “Why are these positions necessary?” and “Are they more important than keeping teachers in the classroom?”
According to the Auditor General, SUSD’s per-student administrative spending is 15% higher than the peer group average. Meanwhile, the public comment portion of the meeting included heartfelt testimonies from teachers, including the president of the Scottsdale Education Association (SEA), who expressed the growing difficulty of teaching amid rising costs, particularly healthcare. Next year, the district plans to offer teachers only a 1% raise while shifting more of the healthcare burden onto the teachers.
We heard stories from teachers struggling to make ends meet, including one who is leaving the district after years of service, and others—one with 27 years of experience—facing insurmountable medical expenses.
Because state funding for education is based on enrollment, the root of the district’s financial troubles lies in the decline of enrollment, which has been exacerbated by Dr. Menzel’s policies and his focus on non-academic priorities. The Auditor General tracks school district enrollment and assesses the financial risks associated with declining enrollment. According to these trends, SUSD has been rated as “high risk” due to its decreasing enrollment numbers.
In FY24, while districts across the state facing declining enrollment worked to reduce operating costs, SUSD failed to make similar adjustments. The statewide average teacher salary increased by 34.6% between FY17 and FY24, reaching $65,113, while SUSD’s average teacher salary rose by just 27.7% to $63,151—$1,962 below the state average. This is a 1.5% decrease in the average teacher salary for FY24 from FY23. Moreover, the average base salary for teachers with less than three years of experience rose by 24.4%, while those with more than four years of experience saw an increase of less than 0.5%. This discrepancy is contributing to the loss of experienced teachers, many of whom are leaving the district. This creates a younger teacher population at SUSD. Recent teaching graduates are more likely to support Dr. Menzel’s policies than older graduates. This is what he wants.
Several speakers at the meeting called for more state funding to address these challenges. While their frustration is understandable, their anger is misplaced. The real issue, as outlined by the Auditor General, is not a lack of state funding but rather mismanagement by Dr. Menzel and the Governing Board, which has consistently approved budgetary decisions that prioritize administrative and support staff over instructional spending.
According to the Auditor General in FY24, statewide school district spending increased by over $500 million to $13.1 billion, with per-student increases, including instruction, over FY23. Despite this increase in funding, the district allocated a smaller portion of the increase in spending to instruction than in prior years. As a result, the FY24 instructional spending percentage is the lowest since the Auditor General started monitoring in FY2001.
The decline in enrollment, because of Dr. Menzel’s continued focus on implementing SEL and bloating administrative positions, will only worsen SUSD’s financial situation. The Governing Board will need to face this ongoing problem for years to come unless drastic changes are made.
Rather than calling for more state funding for education, the SEA should be calling for the removal of Dr. Menzel as the first step in making the changes needed in SUSD.
Unfortunately for students and parents alike, rather than “landing the plane”, what we are witnessing is a controlled crash of the SUSD plane.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
Adrian Fontes has proven himself to be good at two things during his tenure as Arizona’s Secretary of State: losing in court and throwing tantrums. It’s really unfortunate. The state’s top election official is not supposed to be taken to court on a regular basis—especially for, you know, his repeated attempts to undermine election integrity. And of course, throwing tantrums should be more characteristic of toddlers, not a government official. But Fontes can’t help himself.
In his latest tirade, Fontes joined Hillary Clinton’s old consigliere Marc Elias on Democracy Docket to whine about President Trump’s recent executive order to preserve and protect the integrity of American elections. Toward the end of the discussion, Elias asked Fontes about the multiple lawsuits against his Elections Procedures Manual (EPM), which he lost to us and Arizona Republican lawmakers. As has become all too common with our Secretary of State, he responded how you would expect someone to respond when he knows he can’t win. He attacked our organization and degraded our 15,000 activists and donors.
Yes. That’s right. The top election official in our state, who is supposed to remain unbiased and simply do his job to protect election integrity, lashed out against us and told people not to donate to us because we won our lawsuit against him and his illegal EPM.
Ummm…news flash, Mr. Fontes. One of the reasons our donors support our cause is to stop government officials like you from circumventing the law. So, when we win, they feel good because their money was put to effective use.
But we shouldn’t expect someone with such low character as Adrian Fontes to understand that. After all, this isn’t the first time he’s tried to use the power of his office to attack and intimidate organizations like ours that participate in the election process…
