When you’re hired to do a job, it stands to reason that you should actually do the job you’ve been hired to do. Think about it. If a company hired you to be a writer, and you never did any writing for the company, you probably wouldn’t keep your job too long. That is, of course, unless you work for the government.
For quite some time now, federal, state, and local governments across the country—including right here in Arizona—have been engaging in the practice of “release time.” If you’re unfamiliar with this term, it means that certain people are hired to do a specific job for the government, but instead of doing that job, they are “released” to work full-time for their union. This could be someone like a teacher, for example, who instead of teaching students, spends all his or her time doing work for the teachers’ union. But here’s the thing, even though these employees don’t actually work for the government, they still get a paycheck from the government—all funded by your tax dollars.
Is this practice unfair? Yes. Is it unconstitutional? Absolutely.
That’s why the Goldwater Institute has been challenging this practice in our state in a case that has made its way to the Arizona Supreme Court…
A Tucson restaurant owner has sued the Hobbs administration over its newer mandate that only cage-free eggs be produced or sold in the state.
Last week, the Goldwater Institute and Pacific Legal Foundation sued the Arizona Department of Agriculture (AZDA) on behalf of Grant Krueger, owner of Union Public House, Reforma Modern Mexican Mezcal + Tequila, and Proof Artisanal Pizza & Pasta.
In a press release, counsel and Krueger asserted that AZDA had surpassed their constitutional authority by bypassing the legislature; they dubbed AZDA the “egg bureaucrats.”
“Unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats shouldn’t be able to arbitrarily impose these kinds of harmful mandates on small business owners like me,” said Krueger. “If the government can do this with eggs, what else can they do it with?”
Krueger estimated that his restaurants purchase over 2,000 eggs weekly; he employs about 225 people.
Per his lawsuit, lawmakers directed egg producers to petition the AZDA for a rule on requiring cage-free housing for egg-laying hens, as the COVID-19 pandemic had disrupted law making procedures at the time. AZDA published the contested rule in April 2022, under then-Gov. Doug Ducey and then-AZDA Director Mark Killian. The rule began to be enforced on Jan. 1 of this year.
“Neither Arizona’s statutes governing executive branch rulemaking nor the Arizona Constitution permit AZDA to promulgate rules pursuant to such a standardless grant of authority,” read the lawsuit.
AZDA claimed authority for rulemaking under A.R.S. § 3-107(A)(1) and A.R.S. §3-710(J). The legal organizations countered in their lawsuit that the two statutes’ general authorization of rulemaking authority didn’t articulate the specific authority to enact a cage-free rule. Further, they argued that the Arizona Constitution didn’t allow for the delegation of legislative authority to an executive branch agency.
“The appropriate housing arrangement for egg-laying hens in Arizona and egglaying hens producing eggs for sale in Arizona is a major policy question that must be decided by the legislature,” read the lawsuit.
Per the lawsuit, AZDA had passed the rule to circumvent the effort of a similar ballot initiative, which the egg producers found objectionable due to the proposed timeline being too long.
The lawsuit warned that the new law will cause a significant increase in egg prices for both business owners and consumers: up to $66 million. For consumers, that would come to an additional 39 cents per dozen.
Per AZDA data, cage-free housing of egg-laying hens would increase egg production costs by up to 41 percent for labor inputs.
The Arizona Farm Bureau also stands in opposition to the sweeping cage-free egg mandate.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The city of Flagstaff is poised to implement a uniform ban on all paid advertising at the Pulliam Airport following the threat of a lawsuit for banning a firearms ad.
This latest proposal comes after pushback to the city’s proposed prohibition on firearms advertising, a policy that came about after denying admission of an ad from an indoor shooting facility, Timberline Firearms and Training.
During the city council’s work session meeting on Tuesday, councilwoman Lori Matthews said that the city didn’t rely on the airport advertising for its revenue stream, and that determining what could be deemed offensive was too time-consuming and problematic.
“I feel that that’s a more equitable way to do it so that we’re not having discussions every time there’s something we didn’t think about,” said Matthews.
City manager Greg Clifton concurred with Matthews’ view that the potential cost and effort of defending advertising policy to the public and in court would far exceed the airport’s revenue stream.
“We’re talking, maybe, tens of thousands of dollars annually,” said Clifton. “This is not worth it.”
Mayor Becky Daggett agreed; she said that they’d already spent far too much time on their part and on staff’s part to review, debate, and refine the policy.
The Goldwater Institute, which sent a demand letter on behalf of Wilson, told AZ Free News that this latest move by the city was an effort to maintain control and shut out opposing views.
“The city is tying itself in knots to suppress viewpoints it doesn’t like. First, the city violated Rob’s constitutional rights by falsely claiming his ad shows ‘violence or anti-social behavior.’ Then, officials got to work crafting a new airport advertising policy specifically meant to target Rob and his business: an unconstitutional ban on all firearms-related airport ads,” said the organization. “After the Goldwater Institute made clear this new policy wouldn’t stand up in court, officials are now considering a blanket ban on all advertising at the airport rather than defend an indefensible position. There’s a better way: the city should simply allow Rob to run his harmless ad, as he has already done thousands of times, with no complaints.”
The Goldwater Institute sent legal notice to the city last month. In September, Republican lawmakers also warned the city that their proposed ban would be unconstitutional and unlawful.
During the Tuesday meeting, deputy city attorney Kevin Fincel discussed the new draft city advertising policy. Part of the presentation lamented that widespread press coverage of the firearms ban portion of the policy had resulted in controversy, and that some quotes by the press were inaccurate or misleading.
Specifically, the city took issue that multiple outlets included the following quote from the Goldwater Institute claiming that Flagstaff was “abusing its power to push an anti-gun agenda.”
Fincel noted that Timberline Firearms hadn’t run an ad in the airport since 2019. The city maintained that it hadn’t banned the shooting range from advertising, just that specific ad submitted.
“I don’t think Timberline was denied the ability to run an ad at the airport. I think, again, Timberline wanted to run a certain ad at the airport that staff took issue with or possibly discuss to edit,” said Fincel. “I think there was a narrative too, […] it was never an attempt to prevent Timberline from advertising, definitely not from the city,
The city included a July 7 email from Economic Vitality director Heidi Hansen to Wilson, citing it as proof that the city offered alternative advertising opportunities through Discover Flagstaff. The email offered no guarantee that the alternative would allow Wilson’s ad.
“Further, to our Discover Flagstaff, business relationship, they are very good at listening, understanding and then providing a plan,” said Hansen in the email. “They are very accessible, responsive, and reactive, they pivot when we need to pivot – they understand our business as many staff have worked in Destination Marketing Organizations (DMO). If you are interested in learning more and seeing how they might be able to cast a local net for you, I would give one of them a call to get more information. It’s an extremely targeted way to advertise.” (emphasis added)
City staff charged with reviewing ads for approval took issue with the ad because it depicted an individual firing a gun at a paper silhouette target. The city claimed that the ad conflicted with guidelines barring the representation of “violence or antisocial behavior.”
The contested ad by Timber Firearms and Training may be watched below:
The city plans to take action on a finalized version of the ban on paid advertising at the Pulliam Airport on Nov. 21.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The city of Flagstaff may face a lawsuit over its forthcoming decision to ban a firearms advertisement.
In a press release issued earlier this week, the Goldwater Institute said that the city’s ban, if approved, would constitute an illegal violation of free speech.
“When a city operates a public facility, it cannot use that authority to censor messages or viewpoints it disagrees with,” said the Goldwater Institute. “But that’s just what the city of Flagstaff is doing: abusing its power to push an anti-gun agenda.”
The Phoenix-based public policy organization reached out to the city to request they reject the ban on behalf of a business owner who, it appears, prompted the ban: Rob Wilson, owner of the indoor gun range Timberline Firearms and Training.
“By denying Mr. Wilson’s request to advertise based on an unreasonable and pretextual application of the advertising policy, the City has violated Mr. Wilson’s constitutional rights to freedom of speech and due process of law,” stated the letter. “Moreover, the new policy currently under consideration is unconstitutional, both as applied to Mr. Wilson (as it expressly targets his expression) and on its face (as it bans broad, poorly-defined categories of speech and discriminates based on content and viewpoint).”
Wilson had run his gun range business ads without issue at the Flagstaff Pulliam Airport since 2019. It wasn’t until April that the city denied his ad. City officials claimed that Wilson’s advertisement conflicted with their advertising guidelines by representing “violence or antisocial behavior.” Wilson’s contested ad video is below.
The city refused Wilson’s attempt at an appeal. Afterwards, the city developed a new policy specifically prohibiting the inclusion of firearms in advertisements.
Heidi Hansen, director of Economic Vitality, was responsible for the policy changes. Hansen explained during a council meeting last month that the rejection of the Timber Firearms and Training ad was due to the video depicting a firearms instructor “firing rapidly” at a “silhouette of a person.” The figure in question was likely the B-27 silhouette paper target, a common tool for shooting ranges, especially for law enforcement training.
“It was firing quite rapidly at a silhouette of a person and we felt like that might make someone uncomfortable,” said Hansen.
Wilson, a Navy veteran, said that his city leadership went against the Constitution he fought to defend for decades.
“Denying my right to advertise is simply wrong,” said Wilson. “After serving 22 years on active duty to defend the Constitution, I’m not about to sacrifice my rights.”
Lawmakers warned the city last month, ahead of a city council discussion of the ban, that it would be both unconstitutional and unlawful.
During discussion of the policy, city officials said they felt that the advertisement video was unwelcoming and discomforting. Councilmember Miranda Sweet said that Timber Firearms and Training might have to compromise on the issue.
“I was very uncomfortable when I watched [the ad video],” said Sweet. “We’re trying to welcome people into the community when they come into the airport, and the video didn’t portray that.”
Although the Goldwater Institute stated in its letter that the Flagstaff City Council may consider the firearms advertisement ban during its Nov. 7 regular meeting, a city spokesperson informedAP News that an “updated version” of the policy would be included in the Nov. 14 council meeting.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
For the Democrats and their sycophant media allies, the problem is always too much parental choice in education and letting taxpayers keep more of their hard-earned money. Yet this narrative couldn’t be further from the truth. A closer look at Arizona’s budget and the projected budget deficit reveals that we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem…
Projected Budget Shortfall Is a Spending Problem
Just 5 years ago, the legislature enacted the FY 2019 budget that included $10.1 billion in on-going spending, plus $500M in “one-time” expenditures ($10.7 billion total). By last year, that number had exploded to nearly $15 Billion in ongoing spending, a 50% growth in ongoing spending in 5 years! The most recent budget negotiated with Democrat Katie Hobbs earlier this year kept ongoing spending at a lower trajectory but included “one-time” outlays that brought the total budget cost to $17.8B…
