Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs pressed rewind on another agency nomination before facing an embarrassing defeat at the hands of the state senate.
On Monday, the Senate Committee on Director Nominations revealed that Governor Hobbs had withdrawn the nomination of Martin Quezada to be the Director for the Registrar of Contractors (ROC). The governor’s action came after her selection for ROC had been rejected by the Senate Committee, which had been established by President Warren Petersen to vet appointments to head state agencies.
In her letter to Petersen, Governor Hobbs noted that “Director Quezada demonstrated dignity, professionalism, and a deep commitment to public service throughout his tenure leading the Registrar of Contractors.” Hobbs claimed that her nominee “requested that his nomination be withdrawn after the disappointing and inappropriate nomination hearing he endured.”
Senator Jake Hoffman, the chairman of the powerful committee, issued a statement after the governor’s move came to light, highlighting the importance of his panel to ensure that Arizonans are well served by the men and women who lead various agencies. Hoffman said, “Mr. Quezada’s nomination is a prime example of why the Senate Committee on Director Nominations is crucial to ensuring only the most highly qualified candidates will serve as leaders of our critically important state agencies, which impact the safety, health and livelihoods of all Arizona citizens. Through our thorough vetting process, we’ve been able to weed out inappropriate partisan appointments by Katie Hobbs, like Mr. Quezada, while also identifying experienced, accomplished, professional and highly qualified nominees such as Ms. Susan Nicolson for the Department of Real Estate and Mr. Ryan Thornell for the Department of Corrections. Our committee is committed to protecting the public by conducting our due diligence in evaluating these potential state agency leaders.”
According to the Senate’s press release, “concerning information came to light about Mr. Quezada during the May 31st hearing, which led to the recommendation of rejection, including his frequent comments and behaviors supporting antisemitism, racism, and his intolerance for individuals based on skin color, gender, religion and political affiliation.” The announcement also highlighted that Quezada “developed a voting history while serving in the Legislature against small businesses, which is the very community he would have been tasked with serving.”
After the Senate Committee on Director Nominations rejected Quezada’s appointment by the governor, the chamber’s President Pro Tempore, T.J. Shope, indicated that Quezada’s legislative record when it came to small businesses played a significant part in the panel’s decision, saying, “The ROC can ultimately make or break the livelihoods of contractors within our state, so it’s important to choose a leader who supports entrepreneurs in their quest to serve our citizens responsibly and honorably. Unfortunately, during his tenure in the Legislature, Mr. Quezada developed a track record of voting against small businesses 82% of the time, according to data released from NFIB. We can’t in good faith sign off on a director who has a history of voting against the community in which he’s tasked with serving.”
Hobbs now goes back to the drawing board to resubmit a new nomination for ROC to the Arizona Senate for hopeful confirmation.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Arizona State University (ASU) researchers grapple with some of the most pressing questions of our modern political landscape — most recently, whether “Shark Week” is guilty of a racism that perpetuates negative perception of sharks.
One of the study co-authors, ASU Postdoctoral Scholar David Shiffman, speculated to The Washington Post that the lack of diversity was purposeful. He pointed out that there were more white male experts and commentators than women, specifically men named “Mike.”
“When there are hundreds of people of color interested who work in this field, [and] when my field is more than half women, maybe it’s not an accident anymore that they’re only featuring white men,” stated Shiffman.
Researchers say Discovery’s programming overwhelmingly featured White men as experts while emphasizing negative messages about sharks.https://t.co/Fs71Qov5WG
The study noted that shark conservation efforts were hindered, in part, by presenting inaccurate facts, fearmongering, bias, and inaccurate representations of scientists.
“In addition to the logistical difficulties of effectively conserving wide-ranging marine species, shark conservation is believed to have been hindered in the past by public perceptions of sharks as dangerous to humans,” stated the study. “Shark Week is a high-profile, international programming event that has potentially enormous influence on public perceptions of sharks, shark research, shark researchers, and shark conservation.”
The study went on to posit that white men were partly to blame for negative perceptions and limited conservation messaging concerning sharks. Shiffman and five other researchers analyzed 32 years of Shark Week documentaries (272 episodes) to draw their conclusions.
“Shark Week’s depictions of research and of experts are biased towards a small set of (typically visual and expensive) research methodologies and (mostly white, mostly male) experts, including presentation of many white male non-scientists as scientific experts,” stated the study’s abstract. “While sharks are more often portrayed negatively than positively, limited conservation messaging does appear in 53% of episodes analyzed. Results suggest that as a whole, while Shark Week is likely contributing to the collective public perception of sharks as bad, even relatively small alterations to programming decisions could substantially improve the presentation of sharks and shark science and conservation issues.”
The study broke down “Shark Week” episodes by the rhetoric used, themes, and incorporated research methods, in addition to the demographics of featured experts and commentators. The publication noted that the show often presented non-scientists or those without peer-reviewed publications as experts.
The study also noted that none of the featured hosts or experts used non-binary pronouns or were publicly identified as transgender.
“Inclusion of all identities is critical for the future of STEM and shark science specifically,” stated the study.
AZ Free News reached out to Shiffman for comment. Specifically, we asked for his thoughts on criticisms that correlation doesn’t necessitate causation, if the negative perception of sharks in some way was connected to implicit bias and/or racism, and if his nature as a white man was impacted by the study’s findings.
Shiffman responded that he had no comment, but that he would encourage a read of the entire study rather than “ignorant alt-right criticism” of the Washington Post coverage.
The coverage and content of the study did draw sharp criticism from right-wing circles.
Shiffman also published another diversity-based study in May focusing on representation in a prominent shark and fish academic group: the American Elasmobranch Society. Shiffman discovered in this study that more than half of group members were women, but that over 70 percent of group leadership consisted of men.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
