The Payson Town Council’s August decision to incur a $70 million debt via a bond measure approved without a public referendum has triggered a lawsuit from concerned residents with the assistance of the Goldwater Institute. Goldwater is assisting resident Deborah Rose to challenge the measure despite the Town’s claimed legal pretext of an “emergency” to counter efforts from the public to stop it.
John Thorpe, a Goldwater attorney representing Deborah explained, “Our leaders want our money, but not our vote. They’re trying to take advantage of legal loopholes to saddle their own constituents with tens of millions of dollars of debt, systematically stripping power from the people by ignoring laws and twisting their truths.”
The town of Payson, AZ, wants to bypass voters, dump $70 million in debt on its residents, AND prevent citizens from challenging this overreach.
As noted by the Payson Roundup, the lawsuit seeks to block the bond resolution by arguing that no legal emergency actually exists. However, the outlet reported Payson Town Attorney Jon Paladini scoffed at the lawsuit as “specious,” and claimed it would be dismissed quickly. He told the outlet, “Bottom line is that the courts are prohibited from second guessing a legislative body like the council — a slew of cases tell us that. It’s about as close to being frivolous as we’ve seen.”
The use of the city’s emergency clause with a 6-1 vote forced the bond sale into immediate effect and brushed aside the typical 30-day period voters would have to gather signatures to force a vote.
The alleged justification for the “emergency” comes from speculation that at an upcoming meeting of the Federal Reserve, the Fed is expected to reduce interest rates by a quarter or half-point which would lower the interest rates the town would pay.
Thorpe argued that, “Government officials’ efforts to time the market, based on pure speculation about financial trends, is not an ‘emergency,’” and added that this use of the “emergency clause” violates the Arizona constitutional right to organize a referendum and vote on it.
“The so-called ‘emergency’ here is nothing more than town officials’ apparent belief that interest rates might rise in coming months, and that they’ll secure slightly better municipal bond terms now than they could in 30 days if they gave residents the opportunity to organize a referendum,”
He wrote, “When the council approved the bond measure, it slipped in an ’emergency clause,’ stating that the measure would go into effect immediately, without letting residents who might oppose the measure organize a referendum and put the issue to a vote. But the Arizona Constitution guarantees the right of referendum: the right of Arizonans to circulate petitions and refer bills, ordinances, and resolutions for a popular vote. It’s a cornerstone of democratic accountability in Arizona, and it means that the people—not politicians—have the last word in state and local government.
The Payson Town Council is trying to bypass that safeguard and short-circuit the democratic process using a legal loophole: a narrow exception allowing cities and towns to enact emergency measures without waiting for a referendum when such measures are ‘necessary for the immediate preservation of the peace, health or safety of the city or town.’ The so-called ’emergency’ here is nothing more than town officials’ apparent belief that interest rates might rise in coming months, and that they’ll secure slightly better municipal bond terms now than they could in 30 days if they gave residents the opportunity to organize a referendum.”
Paladini maintains that the bond sale measure meets the emergency clause designation and therefore the bonds for such general town projects as “a community and swim center, hiking trails and trailheads, covered event center to lure conventions,” and “upgrades to Main Street to create a business and entertainment district,” “improvements to streets and to public facilities like the police station and fire stations,” according to the Roundup, all constitute “emergency” spending. As noted in the Roundup, nearly all bond sales rely upon the “emergency clause” to sidestep the possibility of blocking them through referendum.
Should the Goldwater lawsuit succeed, it would enforce the standard that voters can in fact challenge bond measures as intended under the Arizona Constitution.
Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Ben Toma filed an amicus brief in support of a lawsuit against Arizona State University and the Arizona Board of Regents for “unlawfully mandating racist DEI training for faculty.” The lawsuit was brought by Dr. Owen Anderson and the Goldwater Institute. The Arizona Board of Regents brought a motion to dismiss the case, which Petersen and Toma are urging the court to reject.
In the text of the brief, Petersen and Toma establish first and foremost that the case brought by Goldwater and Dr. Anderson “is a civil rights case,” citing Arizona Revised Statutes “enacted in part to prohibit discriminatory state and local government practices, including conduct that could qualify as, or lead to, a discriminatory work environment and even liability for the State.”
Sharing the brief, the Arizona Republican Party wrote in a post to X, “We refuse to normalize discrimination in higher education, or anywhere in the state of Arizona.”
🚨ICYMI: DEI or "Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion" is simply discrimination under another name, and we won't tolerate your tax dollars supporting radical left ideology that provides preferential treatment for individuals based on race, skin color, or sex.
As reported by Goldwater, the crux of the complaint by Dr. Anderson is that Arizona State University is using taxpayer funds to mandate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion training among the university’s faculty. And that Dr. Anderson’s refusal to participate in the inherently discriminatory training has left him open to discipline from his superiors.
“I shouldn’t be forced to take training and affirm ideas with which I disagree as a condition of employment,’” Dr. Anderson said. “This ‘training’ is simply racism under the guise of DEI. It goes against my conscience, and I want no part of it.”
Goldwater Staff Attorney Stacy Skankey noted, “Arizona state law prohibits mandatory training for state employees and use of taxpayer resources to teach doctrines that discriminate based on race, ethnicity, sex, and other characteristics.”
“But the ‘ASU Inclusive Communities’ training teaches discriminatory DEI concepts, including things like ‘how…white supremacy [is] normalized in society,’ how to ‘critique whiteness’; ‘white privilege’; ‘white fragility’; and the need for ‘transformative justice.’ Even ‘seemingly innocuous questions and comments’—like asking people where they’re from or commenting on their hair—can be deemed ‘racist.’”
Skankey and co-counsel Parker Jackson, representing Dr. Anderson, alleged in the complaint that the Arizona Board of Regents and ASU are “using public money to prepare and disseminate mandatory faculty and staff training for its employees that presents forms of blame or judgment on the basis of race, ethnicity or sex, in violation of state law.” They add that the University is “compelling the speech of public employees by requiring faculty and staff to take an examination following a training that presents forms of blame or judgment on the basis of race, ethnicity or sex, and answer with Arizona State University’s ‘correct’ answers, in violation of the Arizona Constitution.”
The training included slides containing these objectively racial and gender discriminatory statements and concepts:
“[A]cknowledging the history of white supremacy and the social conditions for it to exist as a structural phenomenon.”
“How is white supremacy normalized in society.”
“[G]iven the socio-historical legacy of racism, sexism, homophobia and other forms of structural inequality, perceptions of authority and control are not always granted to minoritized [sic] faculty.”
“White Fragility.”
“What is White Privilege, Really.”
“Explaining White privilege to a broke white person… .”
“7 Ways White People Can Combat Their Privilege.”
“Racism … can take the form of … and include seemingly innocuous questions or comments, such as asking people of color where they are from … .”
“Sexual identities are linked to power, and heterosexuality, the dominant sexual identity in American culture, is privileged by going largely unquestioned.”
A video segment of the training includes the statements via transcript:
“[I]t scares people to talk about white supremacy or to be called a white supremacist. But if we start thinking about it in terms of whiteness as something that is culturally neutral and we’re moving it from that neutral space into a critical space.”
“[W]e also have to open the space to critique whiteness.”
“[W]hite supremacy … referring to here is the period between the 1500’s and the 1800’s that encompasses both Spanish colonization and Euro American colonization. And what colonization did, was it really created this system of binary thinking. There were folks that were inherently good and folks that were inherently bad, and that led to the systems of superiority that were then written into the foundation documents of our nation.”
The original complaint summarizes: “The Inclusive Communities training provides discriminatory concepts including, but not limited to: white people are inherently racist and oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; heterosexuals are inherently sexist and oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; white people should receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of their race or ethnicity; white people bear responsibility for actions committed by other white people; land acknowledgement statements are a way of holding one race or ethnicity responsible for the actions committed by other members of the same race or ethnicity; transformative justice calls for an individual to bear responsibility for actions committed by other members of the same race, ethnic group or sex; and dominant identities (whites or heterosexuals) are treated morally or intellectually superior to other races, ethnic groups or sexes.”
Skankey explained, “ASU is essentially forcing its employees to agree to a certain type of speech, which violates the Arizona Constitution’s broad protections for free speech.”
Speaking with Fox & Friends in March, Dr. Anderson explained, “I was told I need to ‘decolonize my classroom.’”
In a statement responding to the lawsuit, an ASU spokesman told Fox producers, “The Goldwater Institute suit misleads the court and misrepresents both the content and requirements of this training to make an argument the represents a political perspective but is not based on the law. ASU’s commitment to providing a support and welcoming educational environment for students of all backgrounds will continue and the university will respond appropriately to the Institute’s tactic.”
The case is currently awaiting a response from the Arizona Board of Regents.
The Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) is proposing to put a strict limit on childcare enrollment, but a policy group says that’s illegal.
The Goldwater Institute advised ADHS in a letter that such a cap on childcare facilities (preschools, daycares, and day camps, for example) would violate statutory requirements on agency rulemaking.
Arizona law restricts agencies from making any rules that exceed authorized subject matter areas, that supplement a more specific grant of rulemaking authority, and that aren’t specifically authorized by statute.
The Goldwater Institute argued that the proposal to impose a maximum group size on childcare facilities constitutes an authority that ADHS doesn’t possess within their regulatory powers.
“[A]n across-the-board cap on ‘group size,’ independent of any relevant considerations such as child-adult ratio, is not a regulation of ‘staffing per number and age groups of children’ [per their regulatory authority] and it is not justified by any other provision in the statute,” said the Goldwater Institute.
The organization also predicted in its letter that such a proposal would result in a greater burden on childcare facilities and a greater cost for families, in addition to reducing overall childcare availability.
The proposal concerns amendments to two rules pertaining to staff-to-children ratios: 9-5-404 and 9-5-726. The amendment adds on limitations of group size per age group.
Group size limitations begin small with younger children and expand as the ages rise: infants are limited to 10 in a group; one-year-old children are limited to 12 in a group; two-year-old children are limited to 16 in a group; three-year-old children are limited to 26 in a group; four-year-old children are limited to 30 in a group; and both five-year-old children and school-age children are limited to 40 in a group.
The amendments also struck provisions allowing volunteers to be counted as staff in staff-to-children ratios and restricting student aides or qualified teacher caregiver aides from being counted as staff. Also replaced were any instances of staff as “caregivers,” instead renaming them as “child educators.”
In a press release, Goldwater Institute staff attorney John Thorpe said the group size restrictions would not only be an exercise of authority beyond ADHS’ scope, it would serve to restrict families’ critical access to childcare facilities. Thorpe marked the proposal as another example of “ill-informed, heavy-handed bureaucratic regulation” within the state and nationwide.
“Imposing an arbitrary cap on the number of children allowed in a space — regardless of the size of the space, nature of the activity, or number of adults supervising — makes no sense,” stated Thorpe. “It’s especially pernicious during a childcare shortage, as it will force good preschools and childcare facilities to turn away families they’re perfectly equipped to serve for no other reason than an irrational bureaucratic requirement.”
Last December, a report by the Council for Strong America estimated that Arizona lost close to $5 billion annually in earnings, productivity, and revenue due to lack of adequate childcare. Over half of responding parents said they were late for work, leaving work early, missing days of work, or low in their productivity at work due to their childcare struggles.
Nearly 20 percent reported having been let go or fired from their work related to those struggles.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Citing a report from the Arizona Legislative Budget Committee, the Goldwater Institute debunked the narrative that Arizona’s universal education savings account (ESA) program has harmed students and blown up the states’ budget.
In a lengthy and detailed report from Director of Education Policy at the Goldwater Institute Matt Beienburg, it is made plain that the universal ESA program has been a net-positive development for Arizona’s students, families, and taxpayers.
In a post to X, Beienburg summarized the report writing, “Since universal expansion, AZ enjoyed a $2B budget surplus one year, & an overall K-12 formula savings compared to its enacted budget the second, all as 75,000 ESA students are now being served at lower taxpayer cost $ than their peers in the state’s public school system.”
NEW: Arizona ESAs Defy National Media Propaganda Campaign.
Since universal expansion, AZ enjoyed a $2B budget surplus one year, & an overall K-12 formula savings compared to its enacted budget the second, all as 75,000 ESA students are now being served at lower taxpayer cost $… pic.twitter.com/D1Kc2m3bQ3
In a subsequent comment, he added, “Arizonans deserve better than willful or sloppy misrepresentations by @propublica, @joedanareports, @laurieroberts & @arizona_sos attacking the ESA program while ignoring record public school costs (including recently uncovered misspending on wine tastings & political candidate bootcamps)[.]”
The depth of Beienburg’s breakdown of the committee’s analysis can be summarized into a few key points.
He writes, “While union-aligned journalists and advocacy organizations have painted Arizona’s ESA program as excessively costly to taxpayers and responsible for triggering a budgetary shortfall, the two years of the universal ESA program’s history—and a new report from Arizona’s nonpartisan state budget analysts—suggest otherwise.”
The committee analysts explained, “With the above forecast adjustments, we estimate the total combined district/charter/ESA enrollment will generate savings of $(352,200) in FY 2024 relative to the enacted budget.”
Beienburg points out that the budget deficit of 23’-24’ only arose after Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed the original budget passed by Republican majorities in the House and Senate. That budget would have left the state with over a billion dollars in reserve funds even after fully funding the ESA program.
“Hobbs instead signed a budget that increased state spending by an additional $2 billion to the highest level of all time and exhausted the state’s surplus financial cushion, leaving it unable to absorb lower than projected revenue collections.”
Beienburg also mentions that the bevy of claims from critics of the ESA program “have relied on ideologically motivated, often factually dishonest misrepresentations of the program and its finances,” and “are simply false and represent either basic numerical illiteracy or willful misrepresentation of fact.”
Finally, the report from Goldwater assesses the fifth claim that critics of the ESA make which is that the program “siphons too much money to ‘wealthy’ or ‘high-income’ families,” by supporting families who are either pursuing home schooling or private education. And it is in this last segment of the report, the ultimate, purely ideological and class-warfare driven motivation for all of the “misrepresentations of the program and its finances” emerges.
The glaring inconsistency in the view of ESA critics that the “Empowerment Scholarship Accounts” benefit the wealthy is utterly undone by even a cursory examination of the families utilizing the program. As the Goldwater Institute, the nonpartisan Common Sense Institute, and multiple conservative outlets have repeatedly verified, families of ESA children cover the full breadth of the socio-economic strata from crushingly impoverished to blindingly wealthy, from the broken down trailer parks of South Phoenix to the most lavish homes of Paradise Valley.
Beienburg notes, “By simply proclaiming a national ‘consensus’ in support of their own views—and ignoring an entire half of the nation seeking something better—advocacy organizations like Brookings suggest the education status quo should be preserved because…that’s how it’s always been.”
He concludes, “Yet this same status quo failed families during COVID-19, locked children out of classrooms, has doubled inflation-adjusted K-12 costs over recent decades, and has failed to meaningfully improve student outcomes for generations. The proliferation of education savings accounts—like other school choice innovations such as charter schools—on the other hand, offers families and lawmakers the opportunity to expand the range of educational choices available to students and ensure that each child can pursue an education of excellence, not simply political convenience.”
A Phoenix public school district has come under fire after the Goldwater Institute revealed it’s Governing Board and Administrative Team were treated to a three-day $4,000 per person “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) conference at a Napa Valley wine country resort. The conference was hosted by the California Association of Black School Educators.
According to the report released by the Goldwater Institute, the “4th Annual California Association of Black School Educators (CABSE) Institute,” was held at the posh Meritage Resort and Spa, where off-season rooms run about $400 per night between July 14 – 17. The Creighton Elementary School District Governing Board and Administrative Team reportedly enjoyed the offerings of the conference, which included, “a five-hour ‘Chairman’s Soiree’ at a local winery, where participants were bussed in to enjoy wine and haute cuisine.” According to a post on LinkedIn, registration for education leaders was $850 per person.
Taxpayer-funded wine tastings? School leaders splurge on glitzy DEI conference: https://t.co/M1o1FGTClt
The theme of the conference, “Black to Basics, Root Causes, Interventions” is an overtly race-driven plan to “foster collaborative action among California education professionals committed to advancing equity for Black students.”
The agenda for the convention was conspicuously absent from the CABSE website, however, based upon the 2023 offerings we can glean an understanding of the likely content.
In 2023, the conference offered:
“A Whole Village Approach to Equity,”
“Culturally Responsive Teaching and Learning,” and
“Equity in Mental Health.”
Images posted to X by the ‘UCLA Center for the Transformation of School’ taken at the conference showed presentations from CTS Project Director Dr. Stanley L. Johnson, Jr. entitled “What Are Your Basics For Black Students?” and “The Machinery of Improvement: Practices, Policies, and Advocacy”
Creighton Elementary School District Governing Board documentation located by AZ Free News confirmed that the Governing Board officially approved the trip during its April 16 Regular Board meeting. The document noted:
“Governing Board members and staff from the superintendent’s office are requesting permission to attend the 4th Annual California Association of Black School Educators (CABSE) Institute to be held in Napa, California, July 14-17, 2024, at a cost of approximately $3,800-4,000 per person. The CABSE Institute Is a three-day convening designed to foster collaborative action among education professionals committed to advancing equity for Black students. This conference is a unique gathering of board members, district superintendents, administration officials, teachers, leaders, and decision makers from across the nation. “
At the same meeting, the district’s personnel action report revealed that over fifty educators resigned effective May 24 with the vast majority described as for “personal” reasons.
During the August 6th Governing Board Meeting, Board Member Katie Gipson McLean reported on the conference, saying it was, “a cool, fun conference to go to,” and adding that “they’re encouraging people to be candid and open and honest and have these larger conversations among the group about issues that are impacting specifically black and brown youth.”
Board President Sophia Carrillo summarized the conference stating, “Their theme was ‘Black to Basics’ and it was just awesome to know that we were in a conference where that it was aligned with our goals. Right? One of our goals is our zero percent black students in grade will pass the math standardized test. And to be in a room full of doctors, educator professionals, Superintendents, school board members from California knowing that this is an issue that’s happening statewide. And they also are having these conversations in their local governing board meetings and making sure that our students that are, you know, that are most vulnerable are getting the attention and the resources that they need was just awesome. A lot of good networking from there to hopefully bring into the school district as well.”
The Goldwater Institute wrote “Plenty of unanswered questions about this year’s event remain. In a three-day conference, why was only 9.25 hours committed to substantive conference content (the sessions where one would qualify for continuing education credit), compared to 22.25 hours spent on ‘networking’ events like the winery soiree.
Why are officials from a Phoenix school district attending a California state education DEI conference with a clear California focus? And why is the district—in which 80% of students fail to meet proficiency levels in reading (across all races combined)—narrowly focusing resources toward a single racial demographic to the exclusion of others, while apparently deprioritizing the 80% of students who are Hispanic or Asian, for instance?”
The institute added, “The district should also produce a detailed conference agenda, a list of all persons attending the conference (the entire governing board and the superintendent’s cabinet were approved to attend), and receipts for all relevant travel expenses, in addition to divulging whether any attendees brought guests to enjoy this taxpayer-funded vacation.”
