The Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board held its regular meeting on February 11th. And it was significant for several reasons.
Most notably, the District’s Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Maintenance & Operations and District Additional Assistance Projections were presented. (You can view the presentation and hear the discussion on the budget projections starting a little after the 1:08 mark of this video.)
From the budget presentation, it’s clear that the SUSD’s financial troubles are largely due to declining enrollment. The average daily membership (ADM), which tracks enrollment, is used to determine state funding, including Proposition 123. Under Dr. Menzel, enrollment has consistently dropped. As of February 2025, enrollment stands at 19,367, which is a decrease of 390 students from last year, which was down 355 from the previous year. Over the past seven years, enrollment has fallen by 13%, from 22,608. Dr. Menzel has been superintendent since July 2020, and despite receiving a bonus every year and a pay raise with a contract extension, he has failed to meet any of the academic performance goals set by the Board.
Could the decline in enrollment be due to the dismal academic performance under Dr. Menzel?
Last year, in SUSD, 8,100 students were not proficient in English-Language Arts (ELA), 9,400 were not proficient in math, and over 12,000 were not proficient in science. Yet over 98% are passed on to the next grade or graduate. Unfortunately, this is not an anomaly, but the continuation of a trend at SUSD.
Across all SUSD 5th graders, there are an average of 300 students who are highly proficient in either ELA, math, or science. That means over 1,100 5th graders are not highly proficient. And 600 of those are not even proficient in either ELA, math, or science, yet they will be passed on to middle school.
At Coronado High School, 74% of the students are not proficient in reading, and 83% are not proficient in math, but 89% will graduate in 4 years. How can that be? Is this what Dr. Menzel means when he says SUSD is providing a future-focused, world-class education? What kind of future is he focused on for those students?
The District’s CFO, Shannon Crosier, did offer a “silver lining” to the enrollment decline, noting that staff reductions could help cover part of the projected budget shortfall—$1.2 million of the anticipated $2.9 to $4.2 million deficit (depending on Proposition 123)—and maintain the ratios as established by the Board. I guess that was the good news. But if enrollment is down, doesn’t that mean lower class sizes and a better teacher-to-student ratio? Why is that a bad thing? Why lay off teachers? Answer, Dr. Menzel doesn’t want to make meaningful cuts to District staff.
Both Ms. Crosier and Dr. Menzel pointed out that 85% of funds are allocated to schools, leaving only 15% for district-level expenses. As a result, the budget proposal includes the elimination of only 12 district-level FTE positions. However, according to them, meaningful budget cuts will also require eliminating 20 FTE school-level positions and 3 assistant principal positions.
When Board Member Carney questioned the impact of these cuts, especially considering the 59 instructional positions cut in the 2024 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, while adding 71 student support positions and 44 support and administration positions, Ms. Crosier promised to investigate the matter further. This trend of reducing instructional staff while maintaining student-teacher ratios amid declining enrollment seems to be continuing.
Member Pittinsky attributed the enrollment decline to changing demographics, a low capture rate (only about 50% of eligible students attend SUSD), and what he called systemic issues. He argued that without addressing these issues, the situation would remain unchanged. He added that without changes in the expense structure, 12 months from now we would be doing this again.
Changing the expense structure is one way to deal with the problem, but it doesn’t tackle the root cause of the declining enrollment.
Citing demographic changes and systemic issues as reasons for enrollment loss seems like a convenient excuse, especially when the key questions remain unanswered: Why are students leaving SUSD? Why is the capture rate so low? Perhaps Pittinsky, who chose Brophy over SUSD for his child, could shed some light on that.
It’s concerning that no one at the meeting seems willing to discuss the root cause of the declining enrollment. Could it be tied to the District’s poor academic performance, combined with the focus on social-emotional learning, gender identity, hiring social workers while laying off teachers, and Dr. Menzel’s broader efforts to disrupt and dismantle SUSD?
Why not address the expense structure right now? Cutting 12 staff positions for next year only represents 3% of the district’s staff, which doesn’t seem like a significant reduction. Why is no one questioning what district staff are doing? For instance, what purpose is served by the 13 FTE in Desegregation? Or the 13 FTE working on State and Federal Titles I, II, and V? How about the 10 working on Student Information? Do we need 7 FTE in the Communications Department and another 7 in Community Education?
Member Pittinsky also asked when the Board would be able to inject their values into the budgeting process. Dr. Menzel’s response, as usual, was long-winded and didn’t fully answer the question. But I’d ask Member Pittinsky: why not act now? You’ve acknowledged the need for an expense structure change. As a Board member, you have the power to ask tough questions about district staff activities and direct Ms. Crosier to prepare a budget based on substantial cuts to district-level staff. Again, do we need 13 FTE in Desegregation? Dr. Menzel claims they leave no stone unturned to tackle the problem, but I remain skeptical.
We should also be mindful of potential cuts to government funding, both state and federal, especially in light of President Trump’s executive orders on education. If these cuts materialize, the impact on the District could be significant.
This was just the first budget meeting, and more details will be presented on February 25th and March 4th. The proposed budget will be presented to the Governing Board on June 10th, with a public hearing and adoption scheduled for June 24th.
The June 10th meeting is a regular meeting, meaning public comments will be allowed with a two-minute time limit. A two-minute time limit will likely also be enforced during the public hearing on June 24th, with the Board voting to adopt the budget immediately after the hearing.
This is all by design. Dr. Menzel put together the budget with little to no input from the Board or the public. Then he presents it when there is very little time to make changes. Scheduling the public hearing just before the Board votes allows Dr. Menzel to say he is following the law, without getting public input in a meaningful way into the budget. He doesn’t care what the public thinks.
That’s why parents and anyone concerned about the direction of SUSD must speak up or ask questions directly to the District staff and Dr. Menzel. Inquire about what each department is doing and then ask yourself—and the Governing Board—whether we can afford to continue funding these activities. Then ask yourself if Dr. Menzel and his team have truly left no stone unturned.
If you care about the education of SUSD students, you need to speak up and let the Governing Board and Dr. Menzel know what your concerns and priorities are. Remember, they work for you!
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
President Donald Trump’s opening week included a flurry of executive orders seeking to make good on his promise to restore America’s energy dominance, sidelined by the Biden administration.
While we should all applaud the president’s vision for a secure energy future, Californians should be especially pleased. Even before taking office, the “Trump effect” helped restore a bit of sanity in the Golden State.
Five days before President Trump’s inauguration, the California Air Resources Board (CARB)rescinded its application for a waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency to extend its electric vehicle mandate to freight trains, citing “uncertainty presented by the incoming administration.” The first-of-its-kind regulation would have phased out diesel-fueled switch, industrial, and passenger trains by 2030 and freight trains by 2035 in favor of zero-emission trains.
Though now paused, CARB’s rationale for the rail electrification mandate mirrors broader green energy policies, and California will likely seek to revive it under a future Democratic administration. They shouldn’t.
CARB claimed the rule would be a net economic and environmental benefit, but ignored major costs. A report from my organization highlighted the substantial infrastructure upgrades needed to replace diesel engines with electric or hydrogen models. Further, transitioning to electric trains would have challenged the state’s already strained electricity grid. Lastly, the report shows that the emissions reductions CARB touted were greatly exaggerated.
California already has the highest electricity prices in the continental U.S. With more and more devices connecting to the grid, demand is expected to grow by 76% over the next couple of decades.
At the same time, California’s grid has become increasingly unreliable due to policies that force more and more renewables onto the system, exacerbating the risks of continued brownouts and blackouts.
The conversion of rail to zero-emission technologies that rely heavily on electrification would contribute to these problems. The CARB rule assumed the existence of energy infrastructure that simply does not exist.
New transmission and distribution line upgrades and incremental power generation would be necessary to accommodate the load growth necessary to comply with this mandate. Much of that new electricity generation would likely come from natural gas, which already accounts for 39% of the state’s electricity.
CARB’s claim that the switch to electric trains would reduce particulate matter by 7,400 tons, nitrogen oxides by 386,300, and greenhouse gas emissions by 21.6 million metric tons from 2023-2050 is questionable at best. There is no way that power systems, even in California, will be 100% renewable in the timeframe the rule was scheduled to take effect.
And, as already mentioned, new generation capacity would certainly include natural gas.
CARB’s suggested that hydrogen could serve as an alternative to electrification. This switch would also require additional upstream infrastructure, increase costs, and put upward pressure on emissions.
This new hydrogen would not even be “green,” since production from non-conventional resources is nowhere near the scale of hydrogen sourced from natural gas or coal gasification. Developing hydrogen pipelines could also drive emissions and costs higher.
CARB’s locomotive regulation was a high-cost, low-reward gamble. Thanks to President Trump, Californians dodged another disastrous energy policy — before he even took office.
Instead of trying to “Trump-proof” California, Gov. Gavin Newsom should be grateful for the opportunity to scrap more of Sacramento’s costly regulations.
“Drain the swamp” is fun to say, and it makes for a great slogan for an election campaign. But too often, that’s where it stops. How many times have you heard politician after politician use such a phrase only to be elected and leave the swamp intact—or make it murkier? But now, it’s 2025. President Trump is back in office, and he is setting a standard of excellence when it comes to draining the swamp—especially on some key issues. And Scottsdale’s newly elected city council is following his lead.
President Trump unleashed a torrent of Executive Orders that have unleashed fossil fuel production in America, rolled back the Green New Deal climate cult fantasy, ended DEI and other race-based hiring and employment practices, and is taking a sledgehammer to the administrative state by letting Elon Musk identify and eliminate billions in wasteful spending.
As we have watched the Trump team move at warp speed to deliver on their campaign promises, we were curious to see if any other state or local governments would follow Trump’s lead at plowing ahead with DOGE-style meaningful reform. Here in Arizona one city has: Scottsdale…
“Rust Belt city benefits from Bidenomics” headlined an article last month in the Wall Street Journal, detailing the economic rebound being experienced by Terre Haute, Indiana, a former manufacturing center in decline for many decades.
Suddenly, due to an infusion of stimulus funding from the 2021 American Rescue Plan Act and the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, this community is experiencing such a windfall that the mayor is “running out of room on his whiteboard” tracking infrastructure projects. New factories are being built, new home starts have tripled, long vacant properties are rehabbed. The venerable Charlie’s Pub and Grub will get a new roof and awnings.
The new initiatives in Terre Haute are part of the hundreds of billions of dollars in federal subsidies supporting manufacturing, housing, and clean energy ventures doled out during the Biden administration.
But one question was never asked. Where is all this money coming from? You might think “taxpayers,” but the truth is that we spend $2 trillion more every year than we take in. There are no available tax-derived funds available to distribute.
Instead, we spend fantasy money, loans charged off to future generations who don’t vote yet. We really do love them, just not as much as the luxury of getting to have things that we don’t have to pay for.
The Terre Haute story, just one of thousands like it, contains several insights into why spending cuts are so difficult and rare. The public habits of mind we have developed about the role of government and the responsibility of government to live within its means are the ultimate reason we have fallen into such fiscal danger.
Earlier generations of Americans would have been alarmed, not heartened, at the gigantic unfunded Biden spending surge. We instead assume that none of us should endure hardship or decline and that if we do, it is the duty of government to rescue us. Personal responsibility is outmoded.
Government has never been known for its efficiency, so all these “free” things are actually quite expensive. The good news is we still have a productive economy that has generated 1.4% revenue growth, net of inflation, since 2001, the last year the budget was balanced. Reasonably prudent governance would have achieved budget surpluses.
But that’s not what happened. Politicians spent so much feeding our welfare addiction that spending grew by an inflation-adjusted 3.0% annually, creating the true crisis we now face. Present projections by the Congressional Budget Office indicate spending will continue to outpace revenues, absent reform. Our national debt stands at an unimaginable $36 trillion, while borrowing costs are rising.
We’re in deep trouble. It may well be too late to avoid fiscal collapse. Interest on the national debt, the only truly non-negotiable item in the budget, tripled during the Biden years. It now exceeds total defense spending.
Interest payments amount to half of the total amount borrowed We are borrowing money to pay interest on the growing sums already borrowed, with no plan in place to reduce the debt amount, the dreaded Doom Loop.
Yet at this point, millions of families and seniors, businesses and governments manage their finances based on the expectation of federal subsidies, without which they presumably would be bereft. Over 75% of the federal budget goes to support these private expenditures.
Can Trump be the white knight who rescues us from fiscal doom? The logistics aren’t all that ominous (e.g., raising the retirement age of Social Security by two years would help), and Trump has generated more support for cost-cutting than any politician in memory. But it’s a matter of simple arithmetic. We can never balance the budget without addressing entitlements. That’s where the money is.
Entitlements are termed “mandatory” spending, but they are really just creations of Congress which can legally amend them at will, if they have any.
Unfortunately, Trump so far shows more interest in the low hanging fruit (Department of Education, USAID, obvious fraud) than in the hard work of convincing the American people that substantial entitlement reform is risky but necessary. Without him, Social Security and Medicare will remain No-Go zones even for budget hawks.
The task only gets harder as time passes. We’ll see soon.
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.
Thanks to DOGE and four wunderkind coders in Treasury’s basement, Americans learned this week that their government sent millions to fund a “DEI musical” in Ireland, a “transgender comic book” in Peru, electric vehicles in Vietnam, and an Anthony Fauci exhibit at the NIH Museum.
Faster than Ludicrous+ mode on a Tesla, the Trump admin’s new code bros are sifting through the financial ledger of America’s spending. Just 20 days in office and the new administration has saved the American taxpayer billions of dollars — exactly what Trump promised on the campaign trail. And as the president’s third week unfolded, news worsened for Democrats and America’s permanent bureaucratic state.
It seems the permanent bureaucracy borrowed the U.S.S.R.’s media playbook, funneling millions to left-wing news organizations such as The New York Times, Politico and Reuters. Evidently it wasn’t enough that a Republican in the newsrooms of our state-run media outlets, PBS and NPR, is rarer than a cogent sentence from Kamala.
Democrats, meanwhile, have decided that this Deathstar boondoggle of government spending at its worst is the hill they want to die on. Conservatives watched with glee as Rep. Maxine Waters, Sen. Chuck Schumer, et al, led the Charge of the Lightweight Brigade to USAID’s former headquarters. Cue dopey chant: “wE Will wiN!” (2025 update—no, you didn’t).
Before all the spending porn (as the great Louisiana wag, Senator John Kennedy dubbed it), Democrats’ opinion polls were in the gutter, with a disapproval rating of 57%.
Do the Dems think rushing to the barricades to defend out-of-control spending will earn them the respect and admiration of the American public? Expect their approval ratings to continue to sink like the Hindentanic.
USAID is just the beginning.
Wait until DOGE bites into the Department of Defense, which has never passed an audit.
In 2019 while on reserve duty at the Pentagon, I was thrown into yet another meeting chockablock with PowerPoint slides, so beloved by our military. This particular meeting was to cover the results of a service-wide audit. To summarize about 187 slides and 2 hours: we failed.
All the top brass in the room somberly listened to the auditors describe $5 billion worth of missing aircraft engines, leases for buildings and land that did not exist, accounting systems closer in age to the abacus than a modern spreadsheet, and miles of missing debits and credits.
As the most junior officer in the room, I kept quiet but closely studied the faces of my superiors. They too, kept quiet, only murmuring “next slide” as disaster after financial disaster was flashed across the screens.
My inner fiscal hawk prayed that the service chief would flip the table over and channel Col. Nathan “YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH” Jessep. But he remained impassive and the meeting dissolved with a whimper and no plans for reform.
That night leaving D.C., I happened to bump into a very senior republican senator at Reagan National Airport and thought it my civic duty to share the (unclassified) events of earlier in the day. I told the venerable appropriator that the audit had revealed billions in waste, fraud, and abuse, and even suggested he should make a request to see the failed audit for himself.
(In the hindsight afforded by three years working in the U.S. Senate, I now know how utterly naive this moment was).
He paused a moment, then said, “Well, you know how these things are. That’s Washington for you.”
I felt sick at the time, which is likely the same feeling many Americans are having this week as they see the grift laid bare in our nation’s capital.
But the good news is that Trump and his DOGE team have restored the hope that government might be right-sized and returned to solid financial footing.
On Friday, when he was asked about the job Elon Musk is doing, the President remarked, “I think we’re going to be very close to balancing budgets for the first time for many years.”
What a tantalizing prospect — a government that spends within its means may truly bring about the golden age of America promised in the president’s inaugural address.
Morgan Murphy is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, military thought leader, former press secretary to the Secretary of Defense, and national security advisor in the U.S. Senate.
Things are just not going well for the leftwing activist groups, billionaire-funded NGOs and trial lawyer firms who have recruited a growing number of state and local government entities to sue U.S. oil and gas companies involving specious claims for damages caused by climate change. In recent months, the lawfare campaign, coordinated mainly from the offices of one San Francisco-based firm, has suffered a series of adverse judicial decisions in what appears to be a rising consensus in the nation’s courts.
Just two weeks after suffering a major setback in a decision involving Anne Arundel County, Maryland, the pushers and funders of this lawfare campaign were tossed out in a case targeting ExxonMobil, Chevron and additional defendants in New Jersey. There, Superior Court Judge Douglas H. Hurd dismissed the Garden State’s lawsuit with prejudice based on the same federal primacy arguments which prevailed in recent decisions in New York City and Baltimore, as well as in the Anne Arundel case.
In seeking damages, New Jersey adopted similar tactics adopted in the other cases that make up this lawfare campaign, claiming they’ve been harmed by “climate change” impacts allegedly caused by the emissions by oil companies, but attempting to couch the damages as violations of state laws unrelated to air pollution. But Hurd was having none of it.
“Despite the artful pleading by the Plaintiffs in this case,” the judge says in his decision, “this court finds that Plaintiffs’ complaint, even under the most indulgent reading, is entirely about addressing the injuries of global climate change and seeking damages for such alleged injuries.”
The problem for the states, cities and counties who have signed up for this lawfare campaign in the hopes of grabbing some big bucks from Big Oil is that their arguments inevitably amount to a local effort to de facto regulate air quality, an area of regulation in which the federal government has always asserted its primacy. There’s a very good reason for this: If every city, county and state in America were allowed to regulate air quality, the economy would soon grind to a halt as it becomes impossible to do business in this country.
Like the judges in the other cases decided thus far, Hurd conceded to that reality in dismissing the New Jersey case, saying, “As Defendants state in their moving brief, ‘the federal system does not permit a State to apply its laws to claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by interstate or worldwide emissions,’” adding, “In conclusion, only federal law can govern Plaintiffs’ interstate and international emissions claims because ‘the basic scheme of the Constitution so demands.’”
The decision in the New Jersey case no doubt comes as a real disappointment for the billionaire-funded foundations and NGOs who spent years pushing for the state attorney general’s office to bring a case. In 2023, Energy Policy Advocates obtained emails detailing tactics employed by the Rockefeller-funded Center for Climate Integrity (CCI) to convince various cities and counties in the state to sign onto the lawfare campaign.
Those emails revealed close coordination between CCI and New Jersey officials, even to the extent of CCI funding an “Accountability University” to educate lawfare participants about the best tactics and talking points to deploy in their big money grab efforts.
CCI even offered to “ghost write” opinion pieces for public officials and “serve as an extra set of hands,” adding, “…there are absolutely no legal obligations. Since we are a 501 c3, there is no pledge or legal sign on’ required. Rather, we view ourselves as an extra set of hands to help public officials…”
So, what’s the point of all this, you might ask? Well, the point is that when you see one of these lawsuits brought by a city, county or state government, just know that none of this is happening organically. Also know that this big money grab costs these companies millions to defend themselves, and we all end up paying for it at the gas pump and in our home utility bills. Maybe it’s time we all demand these billionaires and trial lawyers find more productive ways to spend their time and money.
David Blackmon is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, an energy writer, and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
