For residents of Yuma County, concerns over biosolids are nothing new.
For years, residents, growers, businesses, and local officials have raised concerns about odors, flies, dust, debris, and the sheer volume of treated sewage sludge being brought into southern Yuma County and applied to agricultural land.
And for years, Yuma kept asking for action.
On September 10, the Arizona State Land Department finally acted, finding AgTech LLC in default on one State Trust Land lease and declining to renew four others after determining that continued leasing was not in the best interest of the State Land Trust.
According to the state, AgTech applied more than 68,000 dry metric tons of treated sewage sludge in 2025 alone, with more than 97 percent originating from California utilities.
But Yuma’s fight over biosolids did not begin in 2026.
Yuma County’s own timeline shows the Board of Supervisors formally discussing nuisance and public health concerns surrounding biosolids as far back as 2016. In 2020, the Board formally opposed a proposed 6,000-acre biosolids site. Then, in 2025, the Board formally asked the Arizona State Land Department to terminate AgTech’s lease in response to continuing complaints about odors, flies, dust, and debris.
The County could not terminate the lease itself. That authority belonged to the state.
Still, another year passed.
The issue has since received considerably more attention from statewide officials, with the recent action publicly highlighted by both the Governor’s Office and Attorney General’s Office.
Then, on September 10, 2026, after years of local complaints and more than a year after Yuma County formally requested termination of the lease, the State Land Department acted. The decision came less than two months before Arizona’s general election.
For local grower Tyler Woodman, however, the story goes back much further.
“I have been ‘dealing with it’ for about 20 years,” Woodman said.
Woodman farms roughly a mile north of some of the sites and described years of smelling trucks and odors when the wind shifted, watching the number of trucks traveling through the area and hearing concerns from agricultural workers and neighbors about flies.
Eventually, he said, frustration turned into action.
“Seeing that every route that everyone has ever taken never seemed to bear fruit for whatever reason, I just simply had enough,” Woodman said.
Woodman began filing public records requests with the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and Arizona State Land Department and digging through inspection reports and other records himself.
“After that, I did FOIAs for ADEQ and ASLD, and the stuff I was reading in their inspection reports troubled me deeply,” Woodman said. “So, I just kept digging.”
His questions increasingly centered on the amount of biosolids being applied, the acreage being used, and whether existing oversight was sufficient.
Woodman said one of the things that troubled him most was the feeling that responsibility for oversight was fragmented among agencies.
“Overall, I just kinda got this weird feeling that no one was really in charge and ADEQ didn’t really have the tools they needed to enforce things even if they wanted to,” he said.
The recent State Land Department decision does not settle every question surrounding biosolids in Yuma. Residents continue to call for additional environmental testing, while AgTech disputes the state’s conclusions and has said it intends to appeal the lease decision. The company maintains that it has been a responsible steward of the land and has challenged the process used by the state.
Woodman himself is also now facing a defamation lawsuit filed by AgTech over statements he made while speaking publicly about the company’s operations.
But perhaps his explanation for continuing to dig best captures why the issue has resonated with so many people in Yuma.
“It’s a double-edged sword,” Woodman said. “You don’t want to be wrong about what you think is going on, but you also don’t want to find out you’re living next to a superfund site.”
Whatever comes next, one part of the history is already clear: Yuma did not suddenly discover this issue in 2026.
Residents had been complaining. Growers had been asking questions. County officials had been pressing state agencies for action. The Board of Supervisors had formally requested termination of the lease.
Since the approval of the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015 by every nation on earth except the United States, the ever-compliant global media has flooded newsprint, airwaves and digital space with narratives that China is moving away from coal. We have been assured by tens of thousands of scholarly, peer-reviewed “studies” that the communist government there is rapidly displacing its gigantic fleet of coal power plants — bigger than the rest of the word’s combined — with glorious solar panels and windmills and battery arrays so enormous they’d cover Taylor Sheridan’s 6666 Ranch in the Texas panhandle.
It all makes for a glorious narrative, one heavily encouraged by Xi Jinping’s government in its ceaseless drive for acceptance by the global community and accumulation of geopolitical and hegemonic leverage. The narrative has gained such a high level of acceptance that China is invariably treated at the annual COP and World Economic Forum events as a full participant in the impossible globalist drive for Net Zero by 2050 even though its own nebulous commitments do not even begin to kick in until 2060 and beyond. In the meantime, China continues to expand its coal power fleet and ramp up its mining operations every year, a fact which seems to always be “unexpected” by the media’s preferred “experts” on such things.
Just one problem: It’s all a myth. In a recent analysis, Canadian energy analyst Dr. Joseph Fournier details the realty, which is that the Xi government remains as wedded to coal as former British prince Harry remains wedded to former Netflix star Meghan Markle. Fournier points out the fact that Chinese policymakers framed coal as “the sea-calming divine needle (a reference to the mythical magic staff of Sun WuKong) or ballast stone of national energy security” in the country’s 14th Five-Year Energy plan published in 2020. That framing continues to shape the 15th Five-Year plan published earlier this month, in which authors reaffirm coal’s role as the country’s “foundational” energy source.
This year’s planning report does emphasize “clean and efficient utilization” of coal, as well as “promoting the peaking” of its use, but stops short of specifying the year in which said glorious “peak” might happen or how many years the period of phasing it all down will take. Why play such word games? Because again, it’s all a grand game.
Not that the Chinese haven’t invested massively in wind and solar – they certainly have, so much so that the country’s “renewable” sector contributed as much as 10% to China’s gross domestic product in 2024. Of course, the troublesome reality there is that those wind, solar and battery installations and exports were manufactured in factories powered by coal, fed by raw metals mined by diesel-powered heavy equipment, realities the World Economic Forum (WEF), the United Nations (UN) and their media cheerleaders prefer to ignore.
They’ve built so much of the stuff in fact that this year has seen record levels of curtailment of these weather-reliant energy sources. An estimated 360 terawatt hours of wind and solar went wasted during the first half of 2026 alone, a near-50% year-over-year increase.
The latest Five-Year Plan goes on to call for strengthening coal’s regulatory function within a “new-type power system,” concentrating production in northern security bases, modernizing mines to reduce emissions and pollution and diversifying some coal enterprises into chemicals and other industrial businesses. It also emphasizes methane controls and efficiency upgrades for existing plants but predictably makes no mention of hard consumption caps or rapid retirement schedules.
So, should we really expect China, a nation with transparent designs on global domination, to just voluntarily surrender its Divine Needle to gain praise from climate alarm prophets of the global order? Don’t be silly.
That brings us to another troublesome reality which Dr. Fournier describes: The fact that, at current consumption levels, China’s domestic coal supplies will be essentially depleted over the next 30 years or so. In his report, Fournier says the evidence at hand “does not describe a nation merely hedging against uncertainty. It describes a state systematically preparing for regional war and coercive resource acquisition.”
After all, energy security is in fact inseparable from national security. Why would any rational person expect China to voluntarily give up on protecting that?
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.
Is the world still transitioning to green energy in the era of Donald Trump and in the midst of, yet again, geopolitical unpleasantness in the oil-rich Middle East?
While climate activists bewail the Trump administration’s embrace of fossil fuels and its corresponding disdain for solar panels and wind turbines, a new report released by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Center for Energy and Environmental Research says greener days may yet be in our future.
The report, “Glass Half-Full: Building a Decarbonized U.S. Power Sector,” sees a green light at the end of Trump’s dark tunnel of dismantling Biden-era climate policies. Focusing exclusively on electricity generation over the next decade, the report uses a mathematical model to compare how much “clean power” will survive the Trump administration’s phase-out of wind and solar subsidies and its scuttling of other green-energy initiatives with what would have been produced under Biden-era climate policies.
According to the model, the energy transition is alive and well, with about three-quarters of the “clean electricity capacity” that would have come online under the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act and power plant regulations surviving the Trump onslaught. Yes, onshore wind power will take a hit, and other decarbonization initiatives will be delayed. But writing in The Washington Post, the MIT report’s author, Lily Bermel, a visiting fellow at Columbia University’s Center for Global Energy Policy, urged the “climate community” to continue pursuing “deep decarbonization.”
But the headwinds that the vaunted transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy is encountering show no sign of letting up. A recent report from the BlueGreen Alliance, a partnership between labor and environmental organizations, found that the 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act and other Trump energy initiatives have already delayed or canceled 223 wind and solar projects representing at least $82 billion in capital investment and 111,000 green-energy jobs. While a few coastal wind facilities survive, since March, developers have canceled five leases for offshore wind projects in coastal California, New York, Maine, Louisiana, and North Carolina valued at over $3.9 billion. In accordance with agreements developers negotiated with the Trump administration, most of that money will be redirected to oil and gas projects, geothermal development, and upgrading the power grid.
Furthermore, “deep decarbonization” has been aggressively pursued in Europe, with disastrous results.
“From 2015-2025, the first decade of the Paris Agreement on climate change, global energy consumption rose by more than 14%, with sharply contrasting dynamics,” notes Samuel Furfari, professor of energy geopolitics at the Université Libre de Bruxelles. “Europe’s decrease in energy use is no triumph of ecological heroics but rather the outcome of the assault of the EU Green Deal on competitiveness and its predictable deindustrialization and economic decline.”
Citing a recent Energy Institute report showing fossil fuels make up 86% of global primary energy consumption, with wind and solar accounting for just 3%, Furfari, writing in The Center Square, throws cold water on the idea of an energy transition. “The dominance of fossil fuels in the world energy system persists even as wind and solar, expensive and intermittent, expand. The world is undergoing an energy addition, not a transition, as new technologies supplement the growing capacity of legacy sources.”
Japan, the world’s fourth-largest economy and once a champion of decarbonization, has responded to the recent Middle East energy bottlenecks by reducing its liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports from that troubled region (while increasing LNG imports from the U.S.), ramping up coal-fired generation, and restarting nuclear power plants. Wind and solar power, along with battery storage, are being pushed aside.
Back in the U.S., Elon Musk’s SpaceX recently disclosed plans to develop a natural-gas power plant in Grimes County, Texas, where it is developing a massive new chip manufacturing facility.
“Musk is relying on dozens of gas turbines to power data centers he says are necessary to train the artificial intelligence at the center of his business plans,” The Wall Street Journal reported. Texas abounds in wind turbines and solar panels, but they can’t produce the round-the-clock power 21st-century technology demands.
In addition to failing to meet the soaring global demand for affordable and reliable energy, what is billed as “clean energy” — in the MIT report and elsewhere — isn’t really clean. Wind turbines and solar panels may not produce carbon emissions, but they do create waste — lots of it. Disposal of giant wind turbines in landfills is often the only way to deal with equipment that is no longer serviceable.
“Blades are frequently buried in fragments in several landfills throughout the Great Plains, transforming sites in Wyoming, Iowa, and South Dakota into wind turbine graveyards. By 2050, the cumulative decommissioning material from wind turbines could reach 133 million tons,” noted Ariel Cohen in Forbes.
Out-of-service solar panels, laden with lead, cadmium, and other heavy metals, pose their own environmental problems. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, by 2030, the nation could have as much as one million tons of solar panel waste on its hands.
These not-so-clean, weather-dependent energy sources will never be more than bit players in today’s fast-moving, technology-driven industrial revolution.
Bonner Russell Cohen, Ph. D., is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation and senior policy analyst with the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT).
Faced with the general craziness stemming from voters’ decisions to nominate far-left radical DSA candidates to represent the party in congressional races in half a dozen states now, Democrats are working overtime to mask their party’s true agenda from the general public. The fear that the party’s increasing radicalism will alienate independent voters in the November mid-term elections has party officials worried it could cost them the chance to win majorities in the House and/or the Senate.
The issues of prominent concern are obvious: Abolishing prisons without a viable alternative; de-funding police and ICE simultaneously; reopening the borders a la the Biden autopen presidency; Medicare for all; packing the supreme court; ending the filibuster; abolishing the electoral college and even the U.S. Senate. Taken together it’s an agenda so nutty that it has Axios speculating whether even Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is just too “moderate” now to sign onto it all.
If you saw that coming as 2026 dawned, you should quit your day job and play the betting markets.
Now, we find out that AOC’s original pet issue during her first few months in congress — the climate change narrative — is among the agenda items the Democrat party’s leaders want candidates to mask. Readers may remember that, in just her 2nd month of serving in the U.S. House of Representatives, Ocasio-Cortez teamed with leftwing Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey to sponsor the massive, $90 trillion reorganization of the U.S. economy they called the Green New Deal.
It was a monstrosity of Soviet-style command-and-control regulation and central government planning which would relegate all Americans to give up their cars, abandon vacation travel, eliminate personal airline usage, build a fantasy network of high-speed rail lines, and relegate the masses to living tiny, immobile lives in 15-minute cities while their central government elites lived the high life as if nothing had changed.
The proposed legislation went nowhere, of course, being laughed out of the room by Republicans and independents alike, but the seed had been planted. Joe Biden was installed into the White House in January 2021 and, aided by a massive propaganda campaign free of charge in the legacy media, embarked on a set of energy and climate policies designed to at least get the camel’s nose under the tent to stake the ground for a form of Green New Deal to come.
But my, what a difference five years makes. Democrat candidates are being advised now to avoid the climate change topic at all costs in this year’s midterms. Sen. Markey himself barely mentions the topic in his primary campaign against Seth Moulton, preferring to focus on other more mainstream topics.
“Six years ago, Green New Deal was every phrase out of Ed Markey’s mouth every chance he got. That is not the case now,” Mary Anne Marsh, a veteran Democratic strategist in Massachusetts, told PBS. Aru Shiney-Ajay, executive director at the far-left climate alarm group the Sunrise Movement, says in the same piece that, “It has felt less like people care less about climate and more like people are increasingly freaked out about other issues.”
That makes sense, given that freaking out about all manner of things is a core competency of leftwing activists and politicians. But the party’s vow of omerta about climate change doesn’t sit well with every Democrat. One dissenter, Democratic Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, believes the party’s tactic of hiding its climate agenda amounts to a strategic blunder.
“Climate change has moved from the science department into the economics department,” he said. “It’s now battering people’s home insurance, property values, pocketbook concerns. So I think it’s a very powerful argument.”
The problem, of course, is that climate change does not poll well — it never has. It always ranks at or near the bottom of issues voters most care about in poll after poll. Politicians interested in winning elections naturally tend to want to focus on issues people do care about. In this year’s Democrat party primaries, the voters heavily tilt towards leftwingers who are freaking out about anything President Donald Trump is in favor of.
For Democrats, masking their real agenda on climate change makes sense until the election season ends. After that, all bets will be off.
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.
Craig Harris of Channel 12 is out with another story cunningly designed to make Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program look like a runaway subsidy for private schools. Regular readers will recognize the pattern: take real numbers, arrange them to imply a conclusion the numbers don’t support, and omit every fact that would undercut that conclusion.
We’ve documented this pattern before. For example, Harris’s fabricated 20% fraud claim that the Arizona Department of Education directly refuted, or the misread auditor general sample Harris falsely presented as a program-wide “34% misspending,” despite the auditor general specifically saying it was not a random sample and hence “not intended to be projected to the entire population.”
Most damning, Harris was caught coordinating by text message with anti-school choice activists at the Capitol — advising them where to position themselves for “maximum political impact” on the very legislation he was supposedly covering neutrally.
Channel 12 has never corrected the record on any of it.
Harris’s latest piece continues the tradition. Among numerous falsehoods in the piece, three stand out.
1. Big Numbers With No Denominator
Harris tells readers that $719 million in ESA funds flowed to “just” 190 private schools since 2022, and that Gilbert Christian Schools alone received $34 million – letting the insinuation behind the word “just” do a lot of work.
What Harris doesn’t tell readers is what any of that means in context.
Arizona’s public school system — district and charter combined — spends roughly $14,673 per pupil, a record high, according to the nonpartisan Joint Legislative Budget Committee. The ESA program, by contrast, reports that three-quarters of scholarships fall between $7,000 and $9,000 a year — roughly half what a district or charter school spends on the same child.
Total annualized ESA spending as of the most recent quarterly report is about $1.1 billion — against total Arizona K-12 public school spending of roughly $15.9 billion. ESAs represent about 7% of what Arizona spends educating children, despite educating 9% of Arizona’s K–12 students. That’s not the runaway spending Harris implies.
The Gilbert Christian figure is even more telling once you run it against the alternative. Gilbert Christian’s enrollment grew from roughly 1,377 students in 2022 to 2,300 in 2026. Had those same students attended a district school instead, at Arizona’s average per-pupil cost, taxpayers would have spent well over $100 million educating them over that period — versus the $34 million ESAs actually paid out.
Harris presents the $34 million as an alarming number. He never mentions the number it’s replacing. Again: the context that undercuts his narrative is conspicuously absent.
2. Omitting ESA Data on Special-Needs Students
For his next two attacks on the ESA program, Craig Harris quotes Tulane economist Douglas Harris (no relation) of Tulane University. For those unfamiliar with the latter’s work, Douglas Harris is the Craig Harris of school-choice research.
For example, in a brazen attempt to smear school-choice philanthropist Betsy DeVos during her confirmation hearings for U.S. Secretary of Education, Douglas Harris wrote an op-ed in the New York Times claiming that that charter-school sector in Detroit (which DeVos supported) was a “disaster.” As proof, he relied on a study by Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO). The only problem was that the study showed that Detroit’s charter schools consistently outperformed Detroit’s traditional public schools, and CREDO called Detroit’s charter school sector a “model to other communities.”
In the latest Channel 12 salvo against ESAs, Douglas Harris is cited claiming that school choice programs nationwide serve students who “typically have fewer needs” than public school students.
Arizona’s own data say the opposite.
The most recent Arizona Department of Education (ADE) quarterly report shows 21% of ESA students have a disability, compared to 15% in Arizona’s district schools. That’s not a program skimming the easiest kids to serve. It’s a program serving a higher share of students with disabilities than the district school system.
Of course, those data don’t appear in the Channel 12 story. That would undercut Harris’s crooked narrative.
3. Omitting ESA Data on Sector Switchers
Douglas Harris also claims choice programs nationally serve students who were “already attending” private schools before receiving public support. That’s not true nationwide, and it certainly isn’t true in Arizona today.
ADE’s most recent quarterly report shows 58.6% of new ESA students newly enrolling this year came directly from a public school the year before — up from 57.3% last year and 47.6% the year before. Moreover, these figures undercount the number of switchers because they don’t factor in students moving from out of state or students who would have attended a public school in the absence of an ESA program.
Those figures are harder to calculate, but at the very least, an objective reporter would give readers ADE’s published data on this very question.
But yet again, Craig Harris chose to omit any data that would undermine his anti-ESA narrative.
A Pattern of Omissions and Distortions
None of these are subtle errors a careful reporter might miss once. They are the same style of omissions and distortions that have become the hallmark of Craig Harris’s career—anti-school choice advocacy wearing a press badge.
Arizona families deserve real reporting that provides the context necessary to understand what the numbers actually mean. Until Channel 12 starts doing that, Arizonans should get their news elsewhere.
Jason Bedrick is a Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy.
At the June 23rd meeting, the three-member progressive majority of the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUDSD) Governing Board approved a $20,000 raise and contract extension for Dr. Menzel. His annual salary, not including stipends, bonuses, or other benefits, is now $245,000.
Member Amy Carney voted no. Explaining her vote, she said:
“My vote for extending the superintendent’s contract through 2029 is based on performance, accountability, and the financial realities facing our district. Scottsdale Unified School District continues to face significant challenges. Enrollments declined by approximately 6,000 students over the past decade, resulting in ongoing budget pressures and difficult decisions about closing and consolidating neighborhood schools. And at the same time, district academic performance indicators, including ACT scores, are still declining. This year, the superintendent received a lower evaluation score from the board than he received in previous years. Despite that decline, the board majority has approved both a salary increase and a three-year contract extension. I believe contract extensions should be earned through demonstrated results. When academic goals have not been met over a long span of time and a district is operating in a season of budget deficits, extending a contract is wrong. In most organizations, declining performance would not earn you additional compensation or a lengthened contract. Given those realities, I don’t believe giving our superintendent a raise or long-term contract extension is appropriate. My responsibility is to exercise sound stewardship of taxpayer dollars and hold district leadership accountable for results. So, for those reasons, my vote is a no.”
With this statement, Member Carney again showed the principled leadership she has brought to the Board throughout her four years serving SUSD students and parents.
For those who have been paying attention, this is not surprising.
Over the years, Member Carney has consistently challenged Menzel’s radical and destructive policies. For the past four years, she and outgoing Member Werner were the only voices of reason and common sense on the Board. Despite attacks and ridicule from progressive members who backed Menzel, they refused to serve as rubber stamps and would not be silenced.
Now let’s compare what the Menzel-aligned board members said about his new contract.
Menzel’s Followers on His Leadership
Explaining his vote to approve Menzel’s raise and contract extension, Member Pittinsky said in part:
“I think under Dr. Menzel’s leadership, we’re in the midst of several critical initiatives, all of which are multi-year, and he deserves the opportunity and we need his leadership and his expertise to see them through.”
According to Pittinsky, SUSD needs Menzel’s “leadership and expertise” to carry out “several critical initiatives,” including closing and consolidating schools. Yet those initiatives stem from actions Menzel took, with support from the Board majority, as part of his effort to disrupt and dismantle SUSD.
Then came comments from Governing Board President Dr. Lewis, another public education expert and former superintendent of the year.
Explaining her yes vote, Dr. Lewis said:
“Menzel’s asked frequently to serve and guide other superintendents around the state and that’s a compliment and a badge of honor for this district.”
She conveniently left out that Menzel is paid for his involvement in the Superintendents Collaborative Network with Grand Canyon University.
Dr. Lewis went on to say:
“I appreciate that he symbolizes who we are and what we’re about and is very in touch with some of the points of disagreement. And that takes a sophistication and complexity to weather while leaning in and taking the risk of leading.”
I’m not sure exactly what this means, especially the last sentence. But since Lewis and the other Menzel supporters on the Board routinely approve what Menzel wants, one interpretation is that, if Menzel “symbolizes who we are and what we’re about,” they also support his effort to “disrupt and dismantle” SUSD.
Menzel’s Followers on Enrollment
Pittinsky continued:
“I would point out that if you look at retention, which is the number of students who are in our schools that continue in our schools, every single year that Dr. Menzel has been superintendent, our enrollment has grown. We’ve had more than 100% of our students renew, which means we are attracting more students. Our enrollment trends are a function of starting kindergarten classes that are much smaller than graduating senior classes and that is largely a function of demographics. That is simple math.”
To try and understand Pittinskys’ statements about retention and enrollment trends, I went to the various presentations used by Menzel at the Board meetings.
Member Pittinsky’s statement that enrollment has grown under Menzel is proven wrong by Menzel’s own chart. Go to the 4/29/25 Enrollment Planning Study Session, slide #10, and see for yourself. From 2021 (21,455) to 2024 (20,930) enrollment has declined every year for a total of 525 (-2.4%) students. If you extend it to include 2025 (19,722) (from District Financial & Enrollment Overview 10/28/2025, slide #4) during period 2021-2025 the total drop in enrollment is 1,733, with 1,208 of that reduction happening between 2024 and 2025 alone. During Menzel’s tenure as superintendent the 1,733 enrollment reduction represents 29% of the total 6,032 between 2010 and 2025.
Again, using Menzel’s numbers, while SUSD enrollment was declining by 2.4% from 2021 to 2024, Great Hearts enrollment increased 5.6%. Must be demographics.
Pittinsky is arguing that Menzel should not be blamed for declining enrollment because kindergarten classes are smaller than graduation senior classes, due in large part to demographics. Yes, the math is simple, but it has followed the same pattern since 2010, with kindergarten enrollment lower than the number of graduating seniors every year by an average of over 500 students. But in the last five years under Menzel, we have graduated an average of over 700 more seniors than kindergarten students.
Explain again how we are attracting more students.
Menzel’s Followers on Capture Rate
During the February 11, 2025, board meeting, where the 2025-2026 budget was reviewed, Member Pittinsky commented that, due in part to demographics and the SUSD capture rate (currently 55%), the district would be “doing the same thing again in 12 months” without rethinking its expense structure.
At the February 2025 meeting, Pittinsky viewed the district low capture rate as a problem, but apparently now he views it as a positive while trying to defend his vote to give Menzel a raise and contract extension, he says:
“…if you look at our capture rate under Dr. Menzel, our capture rate has declined at the lowest rate of any of the recent superintendents.”
So, according to Pittinsky, while the SUSD capture rate under Menzel is bad and is declining, it is not as bad as other SUSD superintendents. This is the same logic Menzel uses when he says SUSD academic performance may be bad, but we still lead the state, a state where overall academic performance is a disaster.
I think this kind of logic is what they call spin.
Menzel’s Followers on Academic Goals
Pittinsky also notes that in this contract extension, the Board has set multi-year academic achievement goals for Menzel. But in his five years at SUSD, Menzel has not met a single academic goal. Why should this time be different? Goals may sound meaningful, but if they are repeatedly missed without consequences, they become little more than wasted time.
Menzel’s Followers on the State of the District
Pittinsky claims that according to surveys SUSD is a well-run district. Perhaps Pittinsky needs to review slides 30 and 31 from the 4/29/25 Enrollment Planning Study Session. Those exit surveys identified parents’ concerns about academic rigor, technology overuse, discipline and policy enforcement, bullying and safety, and dissatisfaction with school leadership.
According to Arizona Auditor General, a “review of the District’s data indicates that the District may be moving toward the highest-risk category.” The Auditor cites five areas at SUSD as high risk, including the change in weighted student count (-7.19% in 4 years), and four critical financial measures. You can review the details here Scottsdale Unified School District Approaching Highest Risk.
This story from March 2024 talks about the poor performance of 8th graders on the math testing with only 54% being proficient on the standardized math test. Look at the FY2025 8th grade math test scores on the Arizona Department of Education website here. You will see that only 49% of all 8th graders are proficient in math.
Does this sound like a well-run district?
Here is the bottom-line.
This November we have a choice. We need principled leadership on the SUSD Governing Board. We can’t afford to elect another member with no ties to the district other than being a Menzel supporter. Do your homework.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
