by W.H. Williams | Oct 10, 2024 | Opinion
By W.H. Williams |
The Scottsdale teachers’ union has endorsed three candidates for the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board, emphasizing their extensive experience as education professionals. While their expertise may seem impressive to some, the pressing question remains: does SUSD need more so-called experts on the Board, or do we require individuals who prioritize common sense, academic excellence, and respect for parents’ rights?
Under the current leadership of Dr. Menzel, an education expert, the SUSD has experienced a troubling decline in academic performance and significant student and staff turnover. Despite promises by the experts that social-emotional learning (SEL) would improve academic educational outcomes, the reality has been disappointing. Not only has academic achievement not improved but it has declined during his tenure.
Dr. Menzel and the experts on the Board, who rubber stamp everything he wants to do, not only have a dismal academic record but have caused over 2,200 students to leave SUSD along with record-high staff turnover.
Some studies and reports suggest that SEL is harming the emotional and mental health of students. The shift in spending away from teachers and to more social workers and counselors further drives down academic performance.
The three endorsed candidates—Dr. Donna Lewis, Matt Pittinsky, and Michael Sharkey—have questionable records that raise concerns about their suitability for the Board, but they also promise to “protect SUSD” and Menzel, ensuring the continued disruption and dismantling of the District.
Dr. Lewis has highlighted her accolade as the national superintendent of the year during her time at the Creighton School District, claiming she improved schools from Cs, Ds, and Fs to As, Bs, and Cs. However, she conveniently omits that only 13% of students were proficient in English Language Arts (ELA) and just 8% in math during her celebrated year. Additionally, her leadership style has been criticized for creating a hostile and toxic environment, prompting a formal public apology from a school board member after her departure.
Matt Pittinsky, another candidate with 25 years in education, has been less than forthcoming about his business ties to SUSD. One of his companies provides services to the district, a fact he only revealed after being confronted publicly. This raises serious questions about his transparency and the potential conflicts of interest in his role as a board member. Furthermore, his acceptance of over $10,000 in out-of-state campaign contributions, primarily from CEOs of companies that sell to schools, adds another layer of concern. What motivations could these out-of-state contributors have for influencing a local election?
Michael Sharkey, who has over 20 years of experience in education, has publicly linked his candidacy to the rise of the parents’ rights movement, which he blames for many of SUSD’s current issues. Sharkey asserts that the “book bans, cultural wars, and dysfunction” that are plaguing SUSD are due to the parents’ rights movement.
He rejects the idea that parents are best positioned to make educational and healthcare decisions for their children, asserting that trained professionals know better. This stance is contrary to the Arizona Revised Statutes, which enshrine parental rights in the Parent’s Bill of Rights. Sharkey’s reluctance to recognize these rights suggests a troubling approach to governance that may not prioritize parental input nor respect their legal parental rights.
Despite Sharkey’s recent claims of wanting to engage with families and welcome their input, it’s important to note that initial statements often reflect true beliefs. His previous rhetoric implies a preference for limiting parental involvement and allowing “experts” to take charge of children’s education and healthcare.
You also must ask yourself why a school board member, who should be focusing on academics, would be involved in making healthcare decisions for the students. Again, Arizona law leaves it up to the parents.
This upcoming election presents a critical choice: we can either “protect SUSD” and continue down the path of endorsing more educational experts who have failed to deliver results and are harming children, or we can elect board members who demonstrate common sense, a focus on academics, and a commitment to respecting parents’ rights. Candidates like Gretchen Jacobs, Jeanne Beasley, and Drew Hassler embody these qualities, promising to be responsible stewards of our tax dollars while prioritizing the safety and educational needs of all students in SUSD.
It’s time for a change that puts our children’s future first.
Mr. Williams is a longtime Scottsdale resident, businessman, grandfather, and the parent of an SUSD graduate.
by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Oct 9, 2024 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
Every election cycle, out-of-state special interests spend millions trying to put their bad ideas onto our ballot. Because these groups do not understand our laws or our constitution, the measures they peddle are poorly drafted and are often unworkable or illegal. In some instances, they do know better but don’t seem to care that their proposed measure is unconstitutional.
For example, in 2020, two out-of-state groups collected signatures to put the largest tax hike in state history on the ballot. Nonpartisan attorneys at legislative council told them prior to gathering any signatures that their measure was unconstitutional. They didn’t care. After a multi-million-dollar campaign that resulted in the measure passing by a slim margin, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled the initiative unconstitutional a year later.
Why was it on the ballot in the first place, if it was so clearly unconstitutional? The courts have long held that they currently do not have the power to consider any challenges to the constitutionality of a measure before it is passed on the ballot. The only challenge that can be brought is against the signatures filed with the Secretary of State, or for a violation of the single subject or separate amendment requirements.
But if an out-of-state group is trying to put a measure on the ballot that is clearly unconstitutional, like statutorily exempting a tax hike from a constitutional spending limit, as Prop 208 tried to do, a challenge is not considered “ripe.” Instead, costly campaigns are run on both sides, and only after voters have been presented with a broken measure can a challenge be brought.
Prop 136 changes that…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
by Dr. Erica Kreller | Oct 8, 2024 | Opinion
By Dr. Erica Kreller |
As an OB/GYN with over a decade of experience treating patients with high-risk pregnancies and complications, I have seen firsthand how complex and vulnerable caring for these women can be. While political activists claim that Proposition 139 will improve healthcare in Arizona, nothing could be further from the truth. I’ve never encountered a proposal more dangerous for women’s health.
Supporters of Prop. 139 claim that it’s a necessary step to safeguard abortion access, but in reality, this measure dismantles critical health and safety standards, exposing women—particularly young women—to grave harm. Arizona is just one of 10 states considering such a measure, and the adoption of these constitutional amendments would send shockwaves across the country, paving the way for a radical erosion of reproductive health standards that could influence national policy.
Arizona law already allows abortions up to 15 weeks, with exceptions for later abortions in medical emergencies — a policy supported by 90% of the state’s residents. Prop. 139, however, goes far beyond guaranteeing access.
Consider this. Under Prop. 139, regulations that protect women during abortion procedures would be outlawed. Imagine a teenager seeking an abortion—shouldn’t her physician be required to explain the potential risks and ensure she understands her options? Under this amendment, such a requirement would become illegal. Mandatory ultrasounds to detect dangerous conditions like ectopic pregnancies? Illegal. Parental consent for minors? Also illegal. Requiring that a licensed physician perform the procedure? Illegal.
This isn’t speculation… it’s in the text of the proposition. Prop. 139 prevents any law or regulation that could be interpreted as a “barrier” to abortion. Even commonsense regulations such as regular inspections of facilities, or a waiting period before undergoing an abortion, would be cast aside. These precautions are simply designed to protect women’s lives and well-being. Worse yet, and perhaps most concerningly, the amendment is deliberately vague in its definition of who can perform abortions, labeling them simply as “health care professionals” without specifying their qualifications. This could allow unlicensed and unqualified individuals to perform the procedure.
The consequences would be devastating, and not just for Arizona. We’ve already seen states across the country adopt radical amendments like this one, and in Michigan, good laws that enhance healthcare for pregnant patients have been stripped away. What happens in one state often ripples into others, influencing policy debates and shaping future legislation at the national level.
This isn’t a return to reproductive rights; it’s a step back into the unsafe, unregulated, and dangerous world of back-alley abortions— but this time, with legal protection. The risk of botched procedures, infections, infertility, and even death would rise dramatically. Women will pay the price.
As a physician, I’ve treated women who were led to believe that abortion was a quick solution to their problems, only to experience lasting trauma—both physically and emotionally. These women deserved better medical care and better counseling that Prop. 139 simply will not provide.
And the danger doesn’t stop there. This amendment would likely lead to an increase in abortions performed later in pregnancy, where the risks to a woman’s health grow exponentially. According to research from the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, a woman’s risk of death increases by 38% each week after eight weeks of pregnancy.
Prop. 139’s proponents argue they want to make abortion “safe and easy,” but the reality is the opposite. Removing essential safety standards does not make abortion safe; it makes it deadly for women. Stripping away regulatory oversight doesn’t expand women’s rights—it puts their lives in jeopardy.
This fight extends beyond Arizona’s borders. If Prop. 139 passes, it will encourage other states to gut health and safety standards under the guise of expanding access. We cannot allow this dangerous and reckless model to keep gaining traction. Women across the nation deserve better – and the buck stops with us, the physicians entrusted to provide them with excellent healthcare.
As physicians, we are committed to doing no harm. But Prop. 139 would prevent us from upholding that oath. It would rob doctors of the ability to protect their patients and deliver quality, informed care. And in the end, more women will be hurt—physically, emotionally, and sometimes fatally.
The women of Arizona — and the women of America — deserve a future where reproductive care is safe, informed, and compassionate. For the sake of women’s health, we must reject Prop 139.
Dr. Erica Kreller is a board-certified OB/GYN practicing in Gilbert, Arizona. She is also a founding member of Arizona Physicians Against Prop 139.
by Katarina White | Oct 5, 2024 | Opinion
By Katarina White |
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes has set her sights on Pregnancy Resource Centers (PRCs), launching an unfounded consumer fraud report against these life-saving organizations. It’s one thing to disagree politically, but when someone in a position of power like Mayes starts deliberately targeting groups whose mission is to protect life, it raises serious concerns. What kind of message is being sent when the state’s top law enforcement officer chooses to weaponize her office against organizations that offer free services and support to women in crisis?
Mayes’ consumer fraud report absurdly claims that PRCs “ALMOST NEVER SAY ON THEIR WEBSITES THAT THEY DO NOT PROVIDE ABORTION CARE OR REFERRALS.” This is not only misleading but entirely illogical. Expecting a Pregnancy Resource Center to advertise that they don’t offer abortion services is the same as demanding that a dentist disclose they don’t provide chiropractic care. It’s a manufactured issue designed to discredit these centers, and it’s terrifying that such a tactic is being employed by someone with such power and influence.
To make matters worse, this aggressive stance could pave the way for even more dangerous outcomes if Proposition 139 passes. Prop 139, which seeks to enshrine abortion as a constitutional right in Arizona, would only strengthen the hands of those, like Mayes, who are intent on dismantling any organization that dares to stand up for the lives of unborn human beings. If passed, this amendment would not only make abortion legal up until birth, but also makes it even harder for PRCs to operate without fear of government interference or harassment. The attack on PRCs that we’re seeing now would be just the beginning.
Consider the work being done by the Aid to Women Center. This incredible facility offers a range of services from free pregnancy tests to parenting classes, helping women navigate unplanned pregnancies with care, compassion, and real solutions. Yet, in Mayes’ world, because they don’t provide abortions, they’re somehow guilty of fraud. The real fraud here is the notion that abortion is “healthcare.” Abortion dismembers life—PRCs like Aid to Women Center work to protect and preserve it.
Mayes’ attack on PRCs is not about transparency—it’s about silencing those who stand for life. If Proposition 139 is passed, it will only embolden those who want to shut down PRCs, making it harder for women to find the real reproductive care they need. Pregnancy Resource Centers do not need to apologize for their mission to protect the most vulnerable among us. Instead of demonizing these centers, our attorney general should be lifting them up as the real champions of women’s health.
Katarina White serves as Board Member for Arizona Right to Life. To get involved and stay informed, visit the Arizona Right to Life website.
by Mike Bengert | Oct 4, 2024 | Opinion
By Mike Bengert |
As you read the following excerpts from a book titled “Push” found in a Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) school library, ask yourself – does it have any literary, educational, or scientific value? Is this something you would read to your children?
“I don’t fucks boyz but I’m pregnant. My fahver fuck me. And she know it. She kick me in my head when I’m pregnant. …I think my daddy. He stink, the white shit drip off his dick. Lick it lick it. I HATE that. But then I feel the hot sauce hot cha cha feeling when he be fucking me. I get so confuse. I HATE him. But my pussy be popping. He say that, “Bif Mama your pussy is popping!” I hate myself when I feel good.”
“My clit swell up think Daddy. Daddy sick me, disgust me, but still he sex me up. I nawshus in my stomach but hot tight in my twat and I think I want it back, the smell of the bedroom, the hurt- he slap my face till it sting and my ears sing separate songs from each other, call me names, pump my pussy in out in out in out awww I come…. Orgasm in me, his body shaking, grab me, call me Fat Mama, Big Hole! You LOVE it! Say you love it! I wanna say I DON”T. I wanna say I’m a chile. But my pussy popping like grease in frying pan. He slam in me again. His dick soft. He start sucking my tittie.”
Parents, do you think this kind of material belongs in a school library?
Does it possess any serious educational value for minors, or in any way enrich and support the curriculum in SUSD?
Apparently Governing Board President Dr. Hart-Wells does.
In July, a request to pull certain books from school libraries was submitted by an SUSD parent on behalf of Scottsdale Unites for Education Integrity, a local grass-roots organization.
During the September 10th board meeting, Dr. Hart-Wells made the following comments regarding the request. She prefaced her comments by saying she wanted to put some “sunshine” on the topic.
“Recently the Board received an out-of-state political organization’s request along with a super-minority of other like-minded folks, that submitted a demand to ban certain books from our school libraries. I would just like to encourage the super-majority of our community members and taxpayers who are opposed to book bans to request additional information from your neighborhood school and District administration about these efforts.”
At the board meeting on October 1st, during my public comments, I pointed out Dr. Hart-Wells’ comments. In response, she said my “representation was manipulated and were lies.”
Here is what I said:
“At the last board meeting, Dr. Hart-Wells made a bold statement that a ‘super-majority’ of Scottsdale residents agree with her position of wanting their kids to have access to adult-only rated books with sexually explicit content at school, which appears to violate Arizona laws and SUSD policy. She doesn’t just suggest that a few, some, many, or even a majority of Scottsdale residents, but asserts that a ‘super-majority’ supports her stance and wants to provide children with adults-only rated books at school.”
I suggest Dr. Hart-Wells is the one who lied and manipulated information in her September comments.
During my public comments, I pointed out that the request was submitted by a local group and not some out-of-state political organization, as Dr. Hart-Wells claimed in September.
The request was that books containing pervasively vulgar or educationally unsuitable content be removed from SUSD libraries, classrooms, and online curricula. The goal is to ensure that all the books in the SUSD libraries comply with Arizona law and SUSD policy IJL. It specifically states it is NOT a request to ban books, despite Dr. Hart-Wells’ statement in September.
Dr. Hart-Wells knows or should know, that in response to the request from Scottsdale Unites, using its authority under a U.S. Supreme Court decision and its obligations under Arizona law and SUSD policy, the district began a review of the books in question to determine if they comply with the law and policy.
Rather than supporting an effort (something you would expect the president of the governing board to do) to keep sexually explicit and vulgar books out of the hands of SUSD students, Dr. Hart-Wells purposely lied about the request, even going so far as to encourage community members and taxpayers to contact their school and the district administration about the request.
What was the purpose of her making such a request of the community?
During my public comment, I asked if Dr. Hart-Wells was somehow trying to influence the district review of the books. A valid question, given her encouragement for the community to contact the district.
It seems she objects to the removal of sexually explicit books from libraries. Does she also object to SUSD complying with the law and policy? And why is she apparently encouraging others to object as well?
Following Arizona law and SUSD policy is not optional. It is a basic responsibility of the governing board, a responsibility that the current board and Dr. Menzel’s administration have failed to live up to.
Rather than spending time undermining an effort to keep vulgar and educational unsuitable material out of the hands of SUSD students, Board President Dr. Hart-Wells should be spending her time addressing the low academic performance, record high staff turnover rates, and declining enrollment that SUSD has experienced under her leadership and Dr. Menzel’s administration.
Let’s just be honest about this, union-endorsed candidates are running for the SUSD governing board who want to “protect SUSD” and support Dr. Hart-Wells’ efforts to keep inappropriate, adults-only rated books available to students.
Parents, you don’t have to accept that outcome.
In the upcoming election, you can vote for candidates who want to make SUSD strong by focusing on academics, parents’ rights, safety, and fiscal responsibility.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
by Dan Grossenbach | Oct 4, 2024 | Opinion
By Dan Grossenbach |
Universities are free to adopt ethics contrary to constitutional values, but they aren’t free from the consequences. This is especially true when the University of Arizona hired me, a Christian apologist to teach government ethics, and then fired me on ethical grounds.
For the last four years, I taught college students the skills of effective moral decision making in a required course titled “Ethics for the Public Administrator.” The students come from majors like law, criminal justice, and political science—many becoming cops, lawyers, and bureaucrats. I have countless emails and evaluations praising me for offering something they never had before: deep thinking on moral issues.
Selecting course content wasn’t easy. At first, I was tempted to model my predecessors by surveying the most popular moral theories like utilitarianism, deontological ethics, virtue ethics, relativism, natural law, and divine command theory so students could select their preferred choice.
However, ethics isn’t something public administrators can choose. They are bound by an oath to protect and defend constitutional values which are based on biblical ethics. So, that’s what I taught.
While constitutional values are based on biblical values, they aren’t the same thing. There are some obligatory commands (loving God and making disciples) and prohibitions (idolatry, blasphemy) that apply only to those who accept biblical theology. However, all values in the Constitution can be traced back to some biblical principle. No other moral theory (or combination of theories) captures the totality of constitutional values like the Bible. This is probably why the Bible was far and away the most cited text by the Founding Fathers when the Constitution was written.
While I always avoided teaching theology in my classroom, part of me worried that administrators may confuse my teaching of biblical ethics with the teaching of biblical theology. Whether this ever was their concern remains a mystery since it wasn’t why I was fired.
To my own surprise, the department director didn’t mention anything about my beliefs or my class content but pointed instead to a financial reason for firing me. After thanking me for my good service to the students, she announced I was being terminated because an unexpected budget surplus allowed them to hire full time tenure track faculty to teach my course instead.
This would be a legitimate reason, if true, but it’s not. Around the same time, the U of A made headlines for just the opposite reason. Just two weeks earlier, the AP reported U of A disclosing a nearly quarter-billion-dollar funding crisis. Needless to say, this historic calamity didn’t cohere with the director’s claim of excess funding. So, I became suspicious and asked if there was anything else that weighed into her decision to fire me. She replied simply, “No, nothing more.”
Unconvinced, I filed a freedom of information request the next day. After a seven-month wait, I enlisted an attorney to compel the university to disclose the truth of what led to their decision. The disclosure showed administrators panicked by two anonymous letters from community members complaining about statements I made at a public school board meeting. The letters alleged that I criticized the LGBTQIA+ community and asked the university to punish me for violating the university’s “values.”
The first anonymous email was sent on October 12, 2023. That same day, a Facebook thread shows three people—a teacher, parent, and school board candidate—plotting to submit their complaint. This was followed two weeks later by a second anonymous email containing similar defamatory claims. This is the true reason I was fired.
No one ever cited evidence of these alleged statements, and the university never asked me about them. They simply ended my employment for constitutionally protected speech I’m accused of making outside of the workplace, and then they lied about the reason.
This problem is much bigger than me or any other persecuted U of A employee. The problem is that there is no longer any ethical standard employed by the university that’s consistent with constitutional values. As I said at the beginning, they are free to embrace another morality, but not free from the consequences.
The university suppresses speech outside the workplace and lies about it. If this behavior accurately reflects the university’s values, we may wonder what kind of ethics they base all other decisions. If not constitutional ethics, what model will they use to operate their institution? Furthermore, what kind of moral system will they teach to future public administrators now that professors teaching constitutional ethics are not allowed? It’s a scary thought.
Dan Grossenbach is a 20-year federal criminal investigator, state-certified educator, husband, dad, patriot, and Jesus-follower in Tucson, AZ. You can follow him on X here.
