If you’ve been driving around town lately, you’ve probably seen the signs lining the roadsides and medians: “Change the Board!” and “Change the Board! Rustand, Stegeman, Betts.” The Board referred to on the signs is, of course, the TUSD Governing Board. The group paying the bill is TUSD Kids First.
If you’re a Facebook user who’s interested in local education, most likely you’ve also seen the TUSD Kids First posts which began showing up in February of this year. Most of them are links to stories which appeared in online publications and blogs, local newspapers and television news. The vast majority of the stories are critical of TUSD. The most recurrent phrase in the comment area above the story is “the dysfunctional 3-2 board.”
Until the signs showed up on Tucson’s streets, indicating that TUSD Kids First has some serious money behind it, it looked like a small grassroots group highly critical of TUSD Superintendent Sanchez and three board members: Adelita Grijalva, Kristel Foster and Cam Juarez. But a look at the Pima County government’s Campaign Finance website shows that it’s an independent expenditure committee which filed its papers in early February. In its most recent filing, it reported receiving a total of $35,150 in donations as of Aug. 18 of this year.
Five donors accounted for $31,500 of the funds received. The committee’s chair, Jimmy Lovelace, contributed $3,334. Its treasurer, Kathleen Campbell, contributed $8,170. The other major contributors are Jim Click, $7,500, Cody Richie, $7,500, and Tom Regina, $5,000.
The five are either business owners or shareholders in a business. Jim Click is a recognizable local name, someone who contributes generously to Republican candidates and the Republican party. The others are less well known. So far as I can find, none of the others show up as contributors to state or national political campaigns. One of them, however, Jimmy Lovelace, has a connection to TUSD, and a grievance. He was the chair of the district’s Audit Committee until he and another member were forced off the committee when a residency requirement was added by the three-member board majority which the group opposes. Lovelace is a shareholder in the accounting firm, BeachFleischman, and many of the other contributions to TUSD Kids First come from shareholders or other employees of the firm, totaling another $1,465.
Independent expenditure committees are political advocacy groups, but they aren’t allowed to coordinate with the candidate or campaign committees. I don’t know of any coordination, but I found two connections between candidates and contributors, both of which, so far as I know, are perfectly legit. One is Cody Richie, who, along with giving $7,500 to the group, also contributed $1,000 to Brett Rustand’s campaign. The other is Robert Harbour, who contributed $500 to TUSD Kids First. He was the treasurer for Mark Stegeman’s campaign in 2012.
As of August 18, the group had spent $6,110, most of which went to designing and maintaining its website—$2,092—and to Facebook—$2,234. That leaves $29,040 in the account. We’ll have to wait until the next reporting period to find out how much the group has spent on creating and putting up its signs and how it plans to use whatever funds it has left.
The $35,150 in contributions to TUSD Kids First far exceeds any of the candidates’ funds. According to the most recent campaign finance reports, Mark Stegeman’s campaign had a total about $15,000, and none of the rest had more than $10,000. By far the loudest, most visible and best financed voice in the TUSD board campaign is an independent expenditure campaign largely financed by five local business people and business associates.
This article appears in Sep 22-28, 2016.
Well, David, some of us whose kids have been on the receiving end of the extremely poor decisions made CONSTANTLY during the past three years by the 3-2 board TKF complains of don’t think “Change the Board!” signs all over town are a bad thing.
The thing many of us DON’T like is Stegeman’s name appearing together with Rustand’s and Putnam-Hidalgo’s. Rustand and Putnam-Hidalgo have no intention of running in a slate with any of the other candidates in the same way that Foster and Juarez are running in a slate. Rustand and Putnam-Hidalgo should both be considered independently and on their own merits, which are considerable.
Stegeman’s reputation is poor because of his past actions in the MAS debacle. If he had the best interests of the district at heart he would recognize that he has been, and continues to be, a disastrously divisive presence on the Board, and he would step aside. But that’s not his style, and unfortunately some people in the business community like him and are tarnishing an effort that might otherwise have been constructive by including his name on a roster with other, more worthy candidates.
David, you’re a progressive, right? So together with “TKF IS FUNDED BY RICH BUSINESS INTERESTS!!!” You might want to mention “FOSTER AND JUAREZ TOOK DONATIONS FROM AN EXECUTIVE AT THE FOR-PROFIT COMPANY TO WHICH THEY VOTED TO OUTSOURCE SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS!!!”
And, while you’re at it, you might mention that these so-called progressive politicians, Foster and Juarez, formed part of the 3-person board majority in TUSD while the Superintendent whose every decision they love to rubber stamp picked fights with the deseg authority, massively increased the legal fees in fighting the deseg order, gave over $3 million in deseg funds back to taxpayers in a sadly underfunded district, agreed with AZ legislators that it would be reasonable to phase down deseg funds after Unitary Status is achieved, reduced magnet school budgets while trying to convince constituents that the deseg authority was at fault for the cuts (a lie), gave a $10K personal donation to UHS, gave band uniforms to UHS before other sites in the district, got a massively increased compensation package for himself passed by his loyal 3 stooges, awarded $10K bonuses to central administrators…the list goes ON and ON and ON, and it is ugly.
But you keep looking the other way. You look at who is funding TKF, you look at charter schools, you look at the AZ State legislature. Admit it: it’s too depressing to look at the CRAP that passes for progressivism in TUSD, isn’t it?
I don’t know who the other posters here are because they are far from transparent. I’m a teacher, 3rd grade. I am spending every spare minute and dollar I have to support Kristel Foster and Cam Juarez because they support my students. My kids don’t have internet at home, but my school now has 5 Computers On Wheels, filled with laptops that allow them the same access that we all take for granted. They also have rich libraries of multicultural books that arrived two summers ago. They read these books and see themselves, wherever they’re from. I support this board and its “3-person board majority” that the previous poster opposes. Please remember, I am a teacher. Please.
Andrea Rickard’s post reminds me of TUSD teacher and TEA president Jason Freed crying as he pitched for 123 in one of the meetings held locally in the months before the vote on the proposition occurred. Unfortunately for Foster and Juarez, tug-at-the-heartstrings-messages-from-teachers and “5 computers on wheels” and a collection of “rich multicultural books” do not cancel out $3 million in desegregation funds given back to taxpayers in a starved and still inequitable school district. They do not cancel out $10K bonuses given to numerous central administrators. They do not cancel out an almost-$500K self-created compensation package for a young, bungling superintendent, who is too stupid not to get caught:
–charging the district for $500-per-night hotel suites when he travels to ASBA conferences
–awarding contracts to consulting firms co-owned by someone who wrote one of his job recommendations for the TUSD superintendency
–saying he had not met Adelita Grijalva’s mother-in-law before the Board voted to give her a principalship without disclosing the relationship (he had met her)
–coming up with ridiculous excuses for not using all the 123 monies for teacher salary improvements
–hoarding 301 monies instead of awarding them in teacher bonuses
–outsourcing subs and undermining their ability to qualify for benefits
Etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
Why do the signs say, “change the board”? Teachers’ opinions vary, and I’d venture to guess that more TUSD teachers disagree with the opinions expressed by Ms. Rickard than agree. Huge numbers of teachers have let the district under this board majority — the teacher attrition rates during the last three years are unprecedented. When I got my teaching credentials a number of years ago, all the full time teaching positions in TUSD filled well before the school year started. Almost two months into this school year, last I heard there were 150 unfilled full-time teacher positions in the district, and most of the teachers I know wouldn’t touch them with a ten-foot pole.
You should be ashamed David. TKF is a good organization, trying to fix the disastrous board majority. Teachers supporting Foster and Juarez better rethink what they are doing. ESI started out taking over 200 substitute teachers, now there are more than 1400 ESI employees all voted for by Foster and Juarez. Wise up teachers your jobs are on the line. Foster and Juarez should be removed from the ballot for their illegal activities in this campaign. I hope that the complaints filed against them lands them in jail. I have evidence against TUSD that involves this board majority and the criminal activity committed against all current and former employees and taxpayers. TUSD is in big trouble , and if Sanchez, Juarez, Foster and Grijalva are smart they would cut and run.
The Board does need to change. Diversity of ideas is a good thing. HT, Cam, Kristel, and Adelita only seem to have one collective idea among them, and somehow it always seems to benefit HT.
I would really appreciate seeing a factual and comprehensive graphic listing ALL of the district’s moves, decisions, actions, successes and failures since the current board and superintendent took office. It should be compiled by an objective party with solid facts to back each action listed. The board reelection issue demands clarity and objectivity, something voters are unable to discern with currently published information. Please advise when this becomes available.
I am not interested in participating in politics, other than voting for whom I consider to be the best candidates for our community. However, I and other people in the City of South Tucson were involved in keeping Pasadera Behavioral Health from putting a 70-person drug and mental residential facility across the street from Mission View School. We believe that kids in our community have enough obstacles to overcome as it is, without putting one more across the street from their school.
At this time, we found out that Paul Diaz, then Mayor of our City of South Tucson, and Luis Gonzales, then our City Manager had been having talks with Pasadera and, illegally, gave a green light to Pasadera’s project. We were forced to recall the Mayor and the City Manager left on his own alleging health concerns (both are currently running for PCC Board positions).
We asked both Mr. Stegeman and Mr. Hicks for help in keeping Pasadera away from Mission View. Both agreed that this drug rehab across the street from a school was bad for the kids and promised to get back to us. That was two years ago, we have not heard from them yet.
Stegeman alleges he a pro student safety. When he had a chance to show that he was in fact for student safety, he ignored our community. Is it that our community is poverty stricken with the median household income of around $20,000 (twenty thousand dollars) and that over 90% of us are of Hispanic descent? That would be discrimination, maybe he does not care for anybody.
Stegeman is currently asking for votes in our community, but most of us are giving him the gesture (obscene) that Little Red Riding Hood made when picking up her basket.
We believe that TUSD can provide a way for our community to better itself. We need to work on the fact that over 40% of our young people, between 18 and 28, do not have high school diplomas. By the time our kids get to high school, they feel like they are put in a track racing against kids from other parts of Tucson, other schools, and they suddenly realize the other runners are one or two laps ahead of them, so they quit.
We want persons who will help instead of ignore our needy communities and our group does not believe Stegeman or Hicks are the persons to do this. Do not vote for Stegeman.
South Tucson Primero you are absolutely correct about Hicks and Stegeman. They make a lot of noise but essentially do nothing to turn TUSD around. They are, infact, a a part of the majority Board ; albeit the “Silent Majority!!! Stegeman should be voted off the Board; Hicks recalled!! TUSD needs to reconstitute the ENTIRE!!! Membership of the Board!!
Shouldn’t there be a disclosure from Mr. Safier, at least at the bottom of these types of articles, that he is a donor to Kristel Foster… Since the Tucson Weekly is all about financial disclosures.
Still waiting for the TW to cover the $10K Kristel and Cam got from the VP of ESI who just got a $21 million a few weeks before thanks to Kristel & Cam…
KRISTEL FOSTER RETURNS CAMPAIGN DONATION
Sept. 13, 2016 — TUSD Board Member Kristel Ann Foster is returning a campaign contribution from a donor after learning that the donor is married to an employee of a company that contracts with TUSD.
“When I received this contribution, I was not aware that the donor is married to an individual who works for a company that does business with TUSD. Now that this issue has been brought to my attention, I am returning this individual’s donation.”
“It is the right thing to do,” Foster said. “As a public servant who volunteers my time as a TUSD board member serving children and improving education in our community, I am grateful that this issue has been brought to my attention so I can address it appropriately. Openness, transparency and honesty are values that I hold dear.”
-30-
David donated to Kristel Foster’s campaign? What a surprise.
Thanks, Morales. Keep up the good work looking into who is donating what to whom.
Such important research to do. Right, David? Important to dig up the dirt on your political opponents. Equally important, apparently, to remain silent about the many egregious abuses of public office your fine friends are guilty of.
Your commentary is worthless, from an information standpoint, and could be translated this, with no loss of its underlying meaning: “Vote for my friends! Vote for my friends! Vote for my friends!”
Kristel Foster – if you and your buddy Cam Juarez did not IMMEDIATELY pick up the phone and call a Phoenix area donor who gave $5,000 to your Southern Arizona school board campaigns to find out who the donor was — and if your campaign treasurer did not record both names on the check, then you are unfit for public office.
Do you think anyone BELIEVES that you and Juarez didn’t know there was a connection between those donations and ESI? You have lied to the public repeatedly in defense of yourself and your overpaid, underperforming BFF HT Sanchez. Didn’t you have the normal preschool education that included the story about the little boy who cried wolf? When you lie repeatedly, no one believes you any more. Your credibility is destroyed.
In my humble opinion, you should do what is right and drop out of the campaign now. You have done enough damage to TUSD and to the credibility of the Democratic Party.
This article is not surprising, given all the articles written by David Safier, who seems to be a total puppet for all his cronies in TUSD. Why not disclose that you have a conflict of interest when you write about TUSD? Donating to a school board member like Kristel Foster and not disclosing it is disingenuous journalism at its best. Of course, Foster and Jaurez returned the money, after they were caught. And the company that TUSD paid the 21 million for is not working out at all. I know, because I’m a teacher for TUSD and most days, we have no subs, so counselors and other teachers have to sub. By the way, TUSD KIDS FIRST has nothing to do with some of these candidates, including Betts Putnam Hidalgo, who has taken nothing from them. The Weekly should be ashamed of having Safier’s column continuing with all this misinformation and lack of objectivity. It’s tragic and shameful that ambitious and selfish people like Foster and cronies continue to cast blame elsewhere and trumpet “transparency”. All of us in the trenches know what’s really going on!
UA President Hart should send some of her 400K salary to fund KidsFirst. After all, she will be paid for not working. I guess she needs the money.
Three Sonorans, you’re correct that I donated to Kristel Foster’s campaign and would have donated to Cam Juarez’s campaign as well except that his website wasn’t working properly. I didn’t put that information in the post because it is a fact-based post rather than one that expresses an opinion on the TUSD race. However, I probably should have disclosed my support of the two candidates anyway.
It’s a lost cause, David – both salvaging your own reputation as someone able to provide worthwhile information to the public and salvaging the campaigns of Foster and Juarez.
You and your friends (Ann-Eve Pedersen, et al.) took a gamble that the public would be too stupid to notice what was going on. They have noticed, and they understand what Board members receiving donations from an executive in a company to which labor has been outsourced means. It means the kind of filthy politics that are known to surround poor urban school districts where the population served is, by-in-large, too vulnerable to defend itself from leadership in their schools engaging in behaviors like this.
So is the Democratic party going to continue standing behind this, donating to and hosting parties to recruit donations for these soiled politicians? At the recent candidate forum at Temple Emanuel Kristel Foster ticked off a list of Democratic party insider endorsements. These people are still standing behind this board majority? If so, they are trashing their own reputations, not enhancing the reputations of Foster and Juarez.
You might want to call a pow-wow and have a frank conversation about at what point keeping a Superintendent in place becomes less important that salvaging the reputation of an increasingly tarnished political party that is supposed to stand up for the rights of labor and protect the poor and disadvantaged from abuse.
As a neutral observer in this fight, could someone explain to me why the pro foster/cam posts are from actual identified people….and the other side posts by (simplistic/reductive/dishonest) screen names? (save for the perpetually aggrieved janitor)
David Safier, your defense that your blogs are fact based, and that is why you don’t disclose your personal affiliations is ridiculous and insulting to your readers. All journalists, if you consider yourself one, should always adhere to full disclosure, period. It is a matter of ethics.
D.a, Rickard, the reason that many people, including teachers like myself, do not post our full names, is, the fear of retribution. This ominous cloud hangs over us in TUSD. HT Sanchez and his followers intimidate principals, teachers, and community members who dare to oppose them. Bravo to DA Morales, who posts under Three Sonorans, and actually questions this corrupt board and superintendent. That’s why they either leave the dais when he speaks at call to the audience, or eject him.
Gee, let’s see, D.A. Rickard (related to Andrea Rickard, by any chance?) it might be because Foster and Juarez are backed by the entire Democratic party establishment, including powerful elected officials in several different areas of state and local government. Though many know that the emperor Foster-Juarez has no clothes, is it that hard to understand why not many ordinary citizens living in Tucson are willing to say so under their own names?
(Welcome to Tucson, a city where an increasingly irresponsible branch of the “Democratic” party refuses to acknowledge its responsibility for implementing even the most basic tenets of political progressivism, and has a death grip on political power.)
Three Sonorans is D.A. Morales, the activist who writes the Three Sonorans blog:
https://threesonorans.com/
If you’re interested in finding out more about him, you can watch the videos where he speaks (or tries to speak) in the Call to the Audience at TUSD Board meetings, and the video of the Board meeting where Adelita Grijalva (daughter of US Congressman Raul Grijalva, in case you weren’t aware) has him removed from the Board room.
You might want to check out his blog some time. It has much better coverage of TUSD than you will ever find in Tucson Weekly.
Maggie, you fascinate me strangely. You’re a “teacher” at TUSD. Yet there is an “ominous cloud” that hangs over you because you fear “retribution.” I trust that your “students” are not adversely affected by your fear of Sanchez’s black helicopters crashing through your “classroom.”
D.a. Rickard: your comments are inappropriate and disrespectful. Getting fired or forced out if you don’t play on the home team — which has happened to many people in this district since Sanchez became Superintendent — is not an unreasonable motivating factor for posting anonymously.
People who support those currently in power in the district, like Andrea Rickard, have no reason not to post under their own names, and may in fact be earning brownie points with leadership for doing so. This is power politics 101 (actually, remedial power politics — any grade schooler who chooses not to “dis” his teacher to her face gets it). So why is this hard for you to understand?
I have only ever posted here regarding the ideas and people I support. The welfare and education of our students drives me, as I’m sure is true of many who follow and get involved in local politics, including the TUSD Governing Board. I really wish we could have a civil conversation about how to continue to make things better for our kids. They need us to be examples of civil discourse, not mudslinging. Please and thank you.
I will gladly and humbly “eat my words” if I’m given actual evidence of ANY competent TUSD teacher “getting fired or forced out” for their principled refusal to “play on the home team.”
Rickards:
Wasn’t Betts Putnam-Hidalgo, an outspoken critic of the way the district has been handling the deseg case, a community rep at Holladay in 2014-2015? Then the community rep position at that magnet school was “eliminated.” And now, it has been “restored,” with a new person occupying the position. This is not a classroom teaching position, but it is a position from which education is provided to the parent community. And the person whose position was eliminated in 2014-2015 had run for a position on the Board against the Democratic party backed incumbent Board President Adelita Grijalva.
Then there was what happened to Lovelace and Kill on the TUSD audit committee:
http://tucson.com/news/opinion/column/guest/time-for-tusd-to-stop-making-unforced-errors/article_6293e564-8228-587b-aed1-4051d3d35d70.html
http://tucson.com/news/opinion/column/guest/tusd-volunteer-district-residency-requirement-among-red-flags/article_690f81f3-b6cc-5443-8427-72e352b8fb28.html
Here’s what Chuck Kill wrote in his editorial about the changes made to the audit committee membership requirements, which booted him and Lovelace off the committee:
“In addition to changing the residency requirement for audit committee members, the Governing Board also added the district CFO as a permanent voting member of the audit committee. The committee was designed to assist the board by making sure it was independent of the TUSD management team. With the addition of the CFO to the audit committee (including the possibility of chairing it), the committee will lose some independence from the TUSD management team, since the CFO reports directly to the district superintendent. It will actually be checking up on itself. In addition, since the CFO will be instrumental in recommending the new internal auditor, that position will now also be subject to suspicion. Apparently, a majority of the Governing Board voted to substantially reduce the independence of the audit committee to give less oversight to the superintendent and the finances of the district. Additionally, other audit committee charter changes included removing protective language authorizing members to submit requests for information, setting the agenda and their direct role in selecting the external auditors.”
(Why are Beach-Fleischmann employees donating to TKF, David Safier? Could it possibly be that CPAs know how to spot restructurings that open the door to financial malfeasance when they see them?)
If people who support the current TUSD Board majority don’t know how to connect the dots or haven’t paid enough attention to understand that there are many, many dots to connect in the management of this district during the past three years, it’s not the responsibility of overworked anonymous commenters on Safier’s blogs on Tucson Weekly to help them begin to understand the basics of what goes on in TUSD.
Overall impression? Andrea Rickard comes across like a well-intentioned person who is being used by people who know that while she is a good teacher who has a very good understanding of what happens in her own classroom, she hasn’t the faintest idea what actually goes on in this district’s central administration.
To the previous poster: I again appeal to you and others for a civil discourse that we’d be proud to share with our children and in our classrooms. Let’s stop making disparaging remarks and actually talk to one another.
So, one community rep didn’t keep her position. That settles it. It’s a progressive conspiracy! As President Obama said to Trump (commenting on his ruling on the Meat Loaf/Gary Busey controversy), “Well handled, sir!” My point is simple. My wife, Andrea Rickard, is an amazing teacher. Many teachers are not. Any teacher (or person) that believes that smart, effective teachers are “getting fired or forced out” of their job is either: a) not a teacher, b) a very poor teacher, c) lying, d) delusional, or e) some combination of the above.
But, on the bright (and factual) side, the Cats are winning.
Ms. Rickard: I am at a loss to understand what exactly, in the post to which you respond, you think to be “uncivil” or unfit to share with children. (Granted, children probably wouldn’t understand the passages the commenter included about the district’s audit committee, but what is objectionable about someone taking D.a. Rickard’s question seriously and trying to provide solid, factual information about people who HAVE been “forced out” in this district? This IS civil discourse, and it seems to me that the commenter to whom you are responding ended on a very courteous note, granting that you may understand your classroom very well, but pointing out something that is eminently clear: you have shown in your posts that you are not aware of some of the most basic facts about what has gone on in the district’s central administration. It is neither “uncivil” nor “disparaging” for other commenters to remark on this obvious fact.
Do you really think that in a district where the Superintendent (who will be taking home close to $500K in total compensation this year) bragged in his State of the District address in the spring of 2016 that he had given $3 million in deseg funds back to taxpayers
http://tusd1.org/contents/distinfo/scpc/stateofdistrict.asp
that whether your classroom has new computers or “rich libraries of multicultural books” is relevant?
With all due respect, we are talking about decisions involving millions of dollars that are being made at the governing board level, not about a few scraps tossed here and there to a shockingly underpaid teaching force. It’s the decisions involving millions of dollars made at the governing board level that are relevant to which candidates should be supported for the governing board, not decisions involving a few thousand dollars about computers and multicultural books in some of the district’s classrooms.
Here is rule for Tucson voters. Anything Jim Click gives money to, vote the opposite. No amount of philanthropic acts can vacuum his conscience enough considering the right wing causes he massively supports with his cash,
D.a. Rickard: You wrote, earlier in this comment stream, “I will gladly and humbly “eat my words” if I’m given actual evidence of ANY competent TUSD teacher “getting fired or forced out” for their principled refusal to “play on the home team.””
Seems that you are reneging on the previous deal you offered. Or do you feel that because the competent TUSD employee another commenter said got forced out was a community rep rather than a classroom teacher, that lets you off the hook?
No one has questioned your wife’s excellence as a classroom teacher. But classroom teachers do not always follow the details of the district’s governance. And it is what’s happening in the district’s governance, including the fact that the management of subs was outsourced and that two incumbent members of the board majority who recently voted to grant a $21 million contract to the company that manages outsourced subs recently received $5,000 campaign contributions from a Phoenix-based executive at the company to whom the contract was awarded, that is under discussion here.
If you and your wife haven’t been following the complicated (and extremely depressing) business of the TUSD governing board, that is fine. You have no responsibility to do so, and you probably lead happier lives if you choose not to track the TUSD governing board’s activities. But, if you haven’t been tracking these activities, perhaps you should not weigh in repeatedly in discussions among commenters who have been following the business of the TUSD governing board, and perhaps you should not disparage commenters, including teachers in the district, who choose to remain anonymous. Just a thought.
David Safier: If you don’t think the ethics of journalism apply to you, then shame on the Weekly for
giving you space. If you are actively supporting a candidate, it is your RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE FULL DISCLOSURE. This is not a complicated issue. What is it about conflict-of-interest that you don’t get?
In my opinion, you should not be writing about these issues at all. I wince when I see your byline.
I thought I made it simple. I was responding to “maggie”, an alleged teacher, who feared for her alleged job for not “playing for the home team.” I know that all committed educators long for good teachers. I repeat that the good teacher “fired or forced out” due to PC/political reasons does not exist. But I’d love to be proved wrong.
Final Score will be Arizona 31-28
In that there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 150 openings in the district for fully qualified teachers and far too many classrooms continue to be filled with long-suffering, underpaid subs managed by the for-profit company ESI, a fully qualified teacher would have to be pretty mouthy to get fired for PC/political reasons. Most teachers are too overworked and too pragmatic to track governing board business or to comment publicly about it under their own names. But for those who do track governing board business and object to the way the current board majority is running the district, it is smart and entirely justifiable for them to comment anonymously, when they comment. And it is mean-spirited of you to mock them when they do.
You’re right! 150 openings because all the (anonymous) great teachers will be fired for not “playing ball.” Thanks, Obama!
So how did Kristel Foster and Cam Juarez both meet a Phoenix woman who gave each of them a $5,000 campaign contribution? And is it pure coincidence that this woman’s husband is a VP with a company that holds a $21 million contract to manage the district’s substitute teacher program? Hell no, it is not. Yet neither one of them have explained this pay-for-play deal. Corrupt. Corrupt. Corrupt.
150 openings, D.a. Rickard, because the district is being mismanaged and the teaching community knows it. I hate to be “uncivil,” but I will say this in response to your most recent comment: get a clue.
There’s not a single other district in Southern Arizona that has this percent of its classroom positions unfilled at this point in the school year, and this didn’t used to be the case in TUSD before the current cast of “leaders” started running the district into the ground.
You’ve taken your wife’s part doggedly and persistently here, though IMHO you’ve shown a lot of ignorance and poor manners in doing so. Disparaging teachers who disagree with your wife politically does not have to be part of your defense of your wife’s teaching competence, teaching competence which no one — not a single commenter in the entire, long comment stream — has called into question.
Maggie is not an alleged teacher, D.A. Rickard. She’s the real deal. I know, because
I’m her husband.
If you think that teachers in TUSD are a bunch of well-paid, happy campers, you are delusional.
How underpaid would you like to be for your job?
Well paid???? What? Teachers are incredibly underpaid! I’m married to one! Touchdown!
I think I know what the “a.” stands for.
I am coming late to the party, but I just want to clarify one thing: I did not feel that I lost that Family Liaison position through retaliation, but maybe I did. At the time, I could not believe that a Magnet school with Title One money would have to choose between a reading specialist and a family engagement person. But there were strange and inexplicable things going on at the school at the time, and I, the principal and a person who had been the glue of the school (the Magnet Coordinator who also ran the after school sports program that produced so many district winners over so very many years) were all removed, one way or another before the following school year was very much underway. A new principal (BRAND new principal to a brick and mortars school) was brought in–ANOTHER thing that is not supposed to happen to Magnet Schools. When all of that happened, it was accompanied by a scary number of substitute teachers, (another thing that is not supposed to occur in Magnet Schools–and there was a Court order specifically about this: of course the District remains out of compliance on this too) and a number of families fled the school from the middle of the year on. That removed many of the more active families in the school. So there wasn’t much of it that looked like it was good for the school. In retrospect and at the time, it certainly looked like the District was doing its best to close the school without really closing it (not the first time this has happened to that school) It certainly confirmed my thought that if you want to look for the GOOD in TUSD look to the teachers, the counselors, the underpaid people who are the closest to the kids. DON’T look to the District, where it seems that people get paid more and more the further they are from the kids. And finally, as to IECs, they are legal and completely unconnected to the campaigns they support, as David confirmed in the article. This is unlike taking money with no questions asked apparently from TUSD vendors very soon after voting in a 21 million dollar contract. That is really a testament to poor judgement and not asking the right questions, two characteristics that the TUSD Board does not need.
I’ve seen the signs. I don’t like the idea of linking 3 candidates together on one sign, like vote for all, or vote for none.
Each candidate has many reasons why they should be elected, but they represent many varied positions and at times, represent differing ideals.
With the budget available, couldn’t you post signs for individual candidates with the TUSD Kids First logo?
I’ll help you put them up!
Close TUSD. All of you have proven that it can’t be fixed.
Three Sonorans–Tucson’s newest conservative blogger and internet troll who is besties with Michael Hicks, JT Harris, and Mark Stegeman.
Quite a world we live in.
Yeah, it’s amazing what happens when the party with which progressives and social justice advocates SHOULD be able to affiliate with goes so far off the rails.
We end up with a Green-Tea party.
Doesn’t matter from which quarter the calls for reform come from. They need to be heeded.
This Campaign Financing, on both sides, is pure BS; especially the Reports in the Arizona Daily Independent (ADI); an Online Forum for Racists and Bigots!!
Substantive change in TUSD will NOT come with a Change in the composition of the Board/Administration. It will only come when TUSD Teachers regain Control of their Classroom as given them by Arizona Law: Arizona Revised Statutes 1- 841, A(1)(2). TUSD Teachers have been Professionally Emasculated by the Board/Administration. They have permitted such to happen by NOT speaking out under the guise of Job Security and at the expense of their Students and Academic Programs.
As a former middle school student of TUSD, I never would have thought that the district was in really bad shape. I think it’s time we all uncover the truth about the shady business the TUSD Board has been doing.
Oh, and just a random reminder, regardess of who we are voting for, we all just want a better future for the children, and better education.
Well, that’s what some of us think.