by Terri Jo Neff | Jul 27, 2022 | Education, News
By Terri Jo Neff |
If state lawmakers provided nearly 28 percent more funding to increase the salaries of Arizona’s public school teachers between 2018 and 2021, why did those teachers’ pay only go up 16.5 percent? And how did Arizona’s public schools spend billions of federal COVID funds?
Those are among the questions related to public school expenditures addressed in a policy report released this week by the Goldwater Institute which uses Arizona as a case study to delve into how school districts allocated COVID funds and why teachers have not seen meaningful pay increases dispute funding being made available to their district boards.
The report, “The COVID Funding Flood: How Spending Surged in Arizona’s Public School System Amid the Pandemic Era” by Matt Beienburg contains information which lawmakers, school district stakeholders, and the public can learn from when addressing future school funding issues.
Beienburg, Goldwater’s Director of Education Policy, provides data showing that the flood of taxpayer spending in response to COVID was “ostensibly meant to address the harms of the pandemic” but actually led to a massive overspending of federal funds, triggered a costly cycle of fiscal irresponsibility within K-12 public schools, and prioritized the interests of teachers’ unions “over student wellbeing.”
And during that time, the long-running pattern of public school districts increasing overall spending without meaningfully raising teacher salaries continued, according to Beienburg’s report. It should not be surprising then that district boards and administrations engaged in the same type of redirection when it came to COVID funds, the report notes.
Some key findings of the policy report are:
· Between fiscal years 2018 and 2021, Arizona lawmakers increased funding for teacher pay by 27.9 percent. But district schools provided only a 16.5 percent average teacher pay raise during that time, showing many district boards chose to use the funds for other expenditures and not what the legislators, teachers, and parents understood those funds were being used for.
· Arizona public school districts triggered a massive statewide enrollment decline of nearly 50,000 students as a result of their COVID mitigation protocols (i.e. closures, mask mandates) even as charter school enrollment rose and state and federal taxpayer funding for all public schools surged during the pandemic;
· Arizona school districts spent a significantly smaller proportion of their federal COVID funds (23.6 percent) compared to charter schools (31.3 percent) during the peak of the pandemic through June 2021. This was primarily due to a disproportionately high level of funding that districts have received from legislation but accumulated instead of spending at that time.
· The vast majority of public school districts’ expenditures of federal COVID funds for technology and school facilities upgrades occurred more than a full year after most public schools reopened for in-person learning. This suggests the funds are being primarily used for a non-COVID-related purpose. According to Beienburg’s report, the “COVID-19 pandemic ushered in an era of unprecedented spending on public K-12 schools, yet available evidence suggests that the bonanza of federal spending was almost entirely avoidable and that much of it will likely serve a very different purpose than the one originally sold to policymakers and the public.”
The report recommends that to avoid this sort of institutional failure in the future, policymakers in other states should seek to replicate the steps taken by the Arizona legislature to mandate reporting requirements on the use of all federal COVID stimulus funds.
Beienburg’s full report can be read here.
by Terri Jo Neff | Jul 27, 2022 | News
By Terri Jo Neff |
A judge will decide next week whether Arizona voters will see an initiative on the Nov. 8 General Election ballot to approve what the Arizona Free Enterprise Club calls “radical” election procedure changes.
Judge Joseph Mikitish of the Maricopa County Superior Court has set Aug. 5 for a hearing on an Order to Show Cause as to why he should not grant a request by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC) to invalidate more than half the signatures submitted earlier this month on initiative petitions for the proposed Arizonans for Free and Fair Elections Act (AFFE Act).
Mikitsh’s hearing stems from a lawsuit filed July 22 by AFEC, which argues the AFFE Act would upend Arizona’s election administration and voter registration laws, curtail current safeguards with the initiative and referendum process, and reduce candidate contribution limits while promoting more taxpayer subsidies to certain ‘Clean Elections’ candidates.
According to AFEC’s lawsuit, the political committee Arizonans for Free and Fair Elections (ADRC Action) filed an application in February with Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs for a serial number necessary to commence a petition drive in hopes of getting the Arizonans for Free and Fair Elections Act on the statewide ballot for the 2022 General Election.
Then on July 7, Hobbs was presented with nearly 52,000 petitions sheets containing a purported 475,290 signatures of qualified electors, of which at least 237,645 must be deemed valid to get the AFFE Act on the general election ballot.
But state law requires that all circulators who are not Arizona residents along with all paid circulators regardless of residency must register as circulators before they may begin collecting petition signatures. The circulators must also affix their unique circulator registration ID number to each petition they circulate.
AFEC contends, however, that more than 1,000 of the circulators who collected signatures for the AFFE Act initiative were non-compliant with at least one state election law. Some of the compliance issues involved incomplete registration forms while other circulators allegedly did not write their “full and correct registration number on both sides of the sheet,” as required by law.
The lawsuit seeks a court order requiring Hobbs to disqualify all petition signatures obtained by circulators who were not registered in compliance with state law. It also asks Mikitish to bar the state’s 15 county recorders from verifying any signatures on petitions in which the circulator’s registration number was not properly affixed.
“Petition signatures obtained by individuals who failed to strictly comply with
one or more provisions of applicable law are legally insufficient,” the lawsuit states. “Injunctive remedies are necessary to prevent irreparable injury to the
Plaintiffs and to ensure that the Defendant fully and effectively discharges the duties imposed upon her by state law.”
The lawsuit does not supply a tally of the disputed signatures, but AFEC’s Executive Director Scot Mussi said Monday that well over half of the signatures submitted by ADRC Action were collected in violation of Arizona law.
“That should be more than enough to invalidate this initiative,” Mussi said.
Among the provisions of the Arizonans for Free and Fair Elections Act is one which would restrict legislative election audits such as the one Senate President Karen Fann approved last year. It would also allow same-day voter registration
In addition, it would prohibit any law being enacted calling for voters to show identification when dropping off a mail-in ballot at a polling station or election center.
Another provision of the Act is a requirement that elections officials accept tribal IDs when registering voters and confirming their voting eligibility, even though county recorders do not have access to tribal membership databases.
Election-related legal challenges are heard by the courts on an expedited basis. Mikitish’s show cause hearing comes more than three months before the Nov. 8 election, but the case must be resolved by the end of August to ensure the counties have sufficient time for printing and delivery of early ballots and ballots which are sent to voters under the Uniformed and OverseasCitizens Absentee Voting Act.
Even if the AFEC legal challenge fails, many elections observers doubt that voters will approve the initiative. The problem, they note, is that the Act includes so many different provisions that voters will find enough objectionable that they will reject the whole initiative.
Co-plaintiffs in the case are AFEC’s Mussi and Aimee Yentes, both of whom are registered voters in Arizona. Meanwhile, Arizonans for Free and Fair Elections (ADRC Action) has been named as a Real Party in Interest in the lawsuit.
AFEC is an Arizona nonprofit corporation organized and operated for the promotion of social welfare, within the meaning of IRS Code of 1986, section 501(c)(4). The organization engages in public education and advocacy in support of free markets and economic growth in the State of Arizona.
by Corinne Murdock | Jul 25, 2022 | Education, News
By Corinne Murdock |
Last Tuesday, a federal judge dismissed Governor Doug Ducey’s lawsuit against the Biden administration’s attempt to recoup COVID-19 relief funds given to mask mandate-free K-12 schools. Arizona District Court Judge Steve Logan dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Last August, Ducey applied the American Rescue Plan Act’s (ARPA) Arizona cut of the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) to two programs: a $10 million one that would cover $7,000 of tuition or other educational costs at schools without mask mandates, and a $163 million one that made only mask mandate-free schools eligible for funds.
In the Ducey v. Yellen, et al. ruling handed down last week, Logan, an Obama appointee, rejected Ducey’s claim that his application of SLFRF funds were a valid use of addressing the COVID-19 pandemic’s negative economic impacts. Logan insisted that Ducey’s reading of the statute was “too narrow” and thereby neglected its greater context. The judge opined that Ducey’s encouragement of noncompliance with public health guidance worsened, not mitigated, COVID-19’s negative economic impacts.
“In line with the explicit purpose of the SLFRF […] the statute at least carries the possibility that SLFRF funding may not be used for programs with conditions that undermine public health guidance, as such programs would exacerbate rather than mitigate the pandemic’s fiscal effects,” wrote Logan. “This proposition is axiomatic: a program that addresses fiscal effects of the pandemic but contains a condition that would promulgate the spread of the virus prolongs the pandemic and its resulting fiscal effects — thereby failing to provide mitigation of either.”
Logan did agree with Ducey’s argument that the state has authority to decide how to use its SLFRF funds. However, Logan determined that Ducey’s application ran afoul of ARPA’s restrictions. Logan rejected Ducey’s argument that the USDF was too ambiguous when describing permissible uses of SLFRF funds. Rather, the federal judge agreed that the U.S. Department of Treasury’s (USDT) enumeration of permissible usage was sufficient.
In addition to USDT Secretary Janet Yellen, the named defendants in the case were USDT Acting Inspector General Richard Delmar and the USDT itself.
Ducey first filed the lawsuit in January.
In response to an October letter from the USDT informing the governor that Arizona’s usage of SLFRF funds weren’t permissible, Ducey accused the Biden administration of government overreach.
“Here in Arizona, we trust families to make decisions that are best for our children. It’s clear that President Bident doesn’t feel the same,” wrote Ducey. “He’s focused on taking power away from American families by issuing restrictive and dictatorial mandates for his own political gain.”
USDT began investigating Ducey’s two programs following a mid-August request from Congressman Greg Stanton (D-AZ-09), issued hours after Ducey first announced the two programs at the heart of this case.
The governor filed an appeal to Logan’s ruling last Friday.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Terri Jo Neff | Jul 23, 2022 | Economy, News
By Terri Jo Neff |
Arizona ‘s hope to reinvigorate domestic copper production has hit what workers and industry experts hope is only a temporary pause with the reduction of workforce and wellfield operations at Excelsior Mining’s Gunnison Copper Project in northern Cochise County.
Toronto-based Excelsior Mining recently announced it would be throttling back operations at its Gunnison Copper Project and would not reopening mining operations at the company’s nearby historic Johnson Camp Mine this summer as projected months ago.
The Johnson Camp Mine is one of Arizona’s oldest copper mines, with records showing miners bore underground into large reserves starting in the 1890s. The site located north of Interstate 10 near Dragoon saw a number of changes over the decades before operating as an open pit mine from the mid-1970s until the end of mining at the site in 2010.
Excelsior Mining purchased the shuttered Johnson Camp property in 2015 with plans to utilize the solvent extraction electrowinning (SXEW) facility at the property to process copper oxide from Gunnison, a state-of-the-art facility built on hundreds of acres the company owns south of I-10. The final product would be 99.999 percent copper cathode sheets to be shipped off to customers.
Construction of the Gunnison facility garnered national attention as an example of reinvigorating American’s domestic copper production. But the project has faced its share of unexpected delays, including COVID-19.
Then company officials had to address carbon dioxide gas bubbles which greatly reduced injection flows and prevented timely ramp-up to production at Gunnison. A workaround was identified by utilizing fresh water to help dissolve the calcite, but the company has acknowledged it “is not considered the optimal long-term solution” due to water conservation and evaporation concerns.
The long-term answer for Gunnison seems to be construction of an expensive to build raffinate neutralization plant. Company officials then took another look at its Johnson Camp property in hopes of generating cashflow.
In September, Excelsior Mining’s CEO Stephen Twyerould announced plans to utilize various copper deposits spread across the Camp Johnson Mine property which could be processed into copper cathode sheets through the SXEW.
“No new infrastructure will be required, with the exception of a new leach pad and minor piping and pumping facilities,” Twyerould said at the time. “Operations could provide up to 5 years of copper production at the 25 million pounds per annum capacity of the existing SXEW plant.”
Then in January, Twyerould announced that two diamond drills had been mobilized to Johnson Camp to assist with assay activities.
“We are moving quickly on key items related to the JCM restart, which, once operational, will provide cash flow while the raffinate neutralization plant is being designed and built for our flagship asset, the Gunnison Copper Mine,” Twyerould said at the time.
Excelsior suggested copper cathode production from Johnson Camp’s open pits could commence this summer after announcing in April that 31 of 34 planned holes have been drilled using diamond drill rigs, with six holes drilled waiting on assays.
Then on June 22, Twyerould announced that the process to obtain permits for the new leach pad was in progress. He also noted drilling activities were helping to map the Johnson Camp deposits in greater detail than ever before.
“The drilling program is now completed with a total of 43 diamond holes being drilled,” Twyerould said. “Six holes are still awaiting assays.”
However, Twyerould went on to announce that the additional drilling and metallurgical testing will push Excelsior’s goal of restarting mining operations at Johnson Camp to sometime in 2023.
“Therefore, in order to conserve cash and maintain a robust balance sheet, Excelsior is reducing its workforce and putting the wellfield on reduced operation by temporarily stopping acid injection whilst continuing recovery and compliance to ensure underground solutions are managed and controlled,” Twyerould said.
In the meantime, Excelsior intends to undertake a more comprehensive evaluation of the oxide and sulfide potential of its mineral resource and mining assets, according to the company.
by Corinne Murdock | Jul 20, 2022 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
Arizona was ranked the worst state to live in based on its quality of life and inclusivity scoring by one of the biggest news outlets in the country. Its weaknesses that gave it the bottom ranking were air quality, health resources, inclusiveness, and crime — earning it a “Life, Health, & Inclusion Score” of 67 out of 325 possible points.
As CNBC explained, the metric focused mainly on social justice issues:
Combine an era of enhanced social consciousness with a growing worker shortage, and it explains why, now more than ever, companies are demanding that states offer a welcoming and inclusive environment for employees. We rate the states on livability factors like per capita crime rates and environmental quality. We look at inclusiveness in state laws, including protections against discrimination of all kinds, as well as voting rights. While the pandemic may be past the crisis stage, health care quality, outcomes, preparedness and public health spending remain in the spotlight. All are key drivers in this category.
Part of the inclusivity scoring likely came from GLSEN — a national organization pushing LGBTQ+ ideologies onto minors through schools and communities — as well as the Brennan Center for Justice, Lumina Foundation, and National Education Association. CNBC relied on them as a source.
However, Arizona did rank within the top 10 states for several other categories. The state ranked fourth in business friendliness, sixth in infrastructure, and seventh in workforce.
CNBC published the ranking last week as part of their overall data from their annual “America’s Top States for Business” listing. The rankings were based on six different scoring criteria, weighted based on how frequently states use them as a selling point for economic development marketing materials: workforce, 410 points (16 percent); infrastructure, 380 points (15 percent); cost of doing business, 345 points (14 percent); economy, 325 points, 13 percent); life, health, & inclusion, 325 points (13 percent); technology & innovation, 250 points (10 percent), business friendliness, 200 points (8 percent); education, 165 points (7 percent); access to capital, 50 points (2 percent), and cost of living, 50 points (2 percent).
The other 9 of the 10 worst states to live in based on the Life, Health, & Inclusion Score were, in order: Texas, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Missouri, Louisiana, New Mexico, Indiana, Tennessee, and Nevada.
The outlet ranked the following as the top 10 states to live in based on their Life, Health, & Inclusion Score, in order: Vermont, Maine, Hawaii, North Dakota, Minnesota, Washington, Nebraska, Oregon, New Jersey, and Iowa.
With all factors considered, Arizona ranked 34th. The top ten states for business with all factors included were, in order: North Carolina, Washington, Virginia, Colorado, Texas, Tennessee, Nebraska, Utah, Minnesota, and Georgia.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
