We announced our endorsements a few weeks ago but here’s the central takeaway: We’re endorsing Democrats more or less across the board for the partisan races because we think the GOP’s agenda for the state—more cuts to government, irresponsible fiscal strategies, unconstitutional efforts to restrict abortion, unconscionable efforts to marginalize LGBT, wasted dollars on ineffective border-security efforts, a social safety net that was so tattered that thousands of CPS reports were pushed under the rug, etc. etc.—doesn’t bode well for the future.
THE CONGRESSIONAL RACES
Congressional District 1:
Ann Kirkpatrick
We may not always agree with U.S. Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, but she gets it right on the issues that are important to us—education, health care, child welfare, sane fiscal policy and more. Her opponent, Speaker of the Arizona House Andy Tobin, has led the way in cutting education spending, programs that are supposed to protect kids, and pushing through discriminatory legislation that hurts gays and minorities. If Tobin had his way on legislation, our health care system, particularly in rural areas, would be in a world of hurt just so he and and others could make an ideological point about Obamacare. Given our choices here, we’ll take Kirkpatrick.
Congressional District 2:
Ron Barber
U.S. Rep. Ron Barber has proven himself as a thoughtful congressman who puts Southern Arizona first and is willing to cross party lines if he believes doing so will solve problems with the border, improve the Affordable Care Act or help sustain the federal programs important to our home. He has a long record of working to improve the lives of the people who live here. Republican Martha McSally has an impressive résumé but has been too slippery on too many issues and we don’t know where she really stands on much of anything besides getting Martha McSally elected to Congress.
THE STATE RACES
Governor:
Fred DuVal
DuVal is experienced in working across party lines, understands that you don’t improve schools by taking resources away from the ones with the biggest challenges and will veto legislation that is aimed at discriminating against women and minorities. His opponent, Republican Doug Ducey, has advocated policies that will worsen the state’s financial crisis, cripple DREAM Act kids who are trying to make a better future for themselves, further restrict women’s access to abortion and treat gays and lesbians as second-class citizens.
Arizona Attorney General:
Felecia Rotellini
Felecia Rotellini has proven that she can untangle complex cases during her time at the AG’s office, but more importantly, she has demonstrated, following this month’s federal court ruling on gay marriage, that she doesn’t believe gays and lesbians should be second-class citizens. Mark Brnovich finds gay marriage to be “wrong” and we disagree with his conservative outlook on abortion rights and other important policy questions that the AG’s Office will undoubtedly be involved in.
Secretary of State:
Terry Goddard
Terry Goddard was one of the best attorney generals our state has had and promises to fight to boost voter participation in our democracy, as well as to investigate the growing influence of dark money on our campaign system. Republican Michele Reagan has sponsored or voted for laws designed to suppress voting and strip gays of their rights and her recent campaign meltdowns show that she’s already embarrassing Arizona.
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
After watching the state Legislature the past decade dismantle education funding, years led by former Superintendent of Public Instruction and outgoing state Attorney General Tom Horne and former state Senator and outgoing Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal, wouldn’t it be nice to have someone leading public education in this state who actually knows what they are talking about?
And yes, that’s Democratic candidate David Garcia.
The other candidate, Diane Douglas, a Republican, is a former Peoria School District board member and a one-note candidate with a campaign centered on the latest teabagger fear-target—Common Core.
Douglas refused to participate in debates with Garcia, until she was finally forced to do the Arizona Clean Elections Commission debate as a Clean Elections candidate. Common Core, blah, blah, and reports accused her of not answering questions by the press shortly after the debate. She is a one-note candidate, and right now, Arizona’s children deserve and need better.
Garcia, an associate professor of education leadership at ASU (we can forgive him), has experience working with the other side after working in the Department of Education with two other Republican superintendents—Lisa Graham Keegan and Jaime Molera, who’ve both endorsed Garcia.
Want to change the face of crazyland in Arizona? This isn’t Common Core or rocket science—just plain old common sense. Wow, a different way of working with the Legislature, looking at funding, charter school transparency, and looking at our English Language Learner Spanish-speaking in a more positive light. Those are just a few things Garcia is talking about.
Arizona Corporation Commission:
Sandra Kennedy and Jim Holway
The Democrats in this race—Sandra Kennedy and Jim Holway—will fight to build Arizona’s solar industry, which was a $1.2 billion industry last year (on top of helping to reduce the greenhouse gases that are putting our future generations at risk.) The Republicans—who have already admitted that they broke the law during their campaign funded with public dollars—are more likely to find ways to penalized people who have invested in solar panels on their homes and make it more difficult for homeowners to do make the switch in the future.
THE ARIZONA LEGISLATURE
Legislative District 9,
House of Representatives: Pick two.
We couldn’t come to a decision in this race for two House seats between Republican state Rep. Ethan Orr and two Democrats, State Rep. Victoria Steele and ER surgeon Randy Friese. In general, we find ourselves more in line with Steele and Friese, particularly on issues like abortion rights and gun-violence issues. But we appreciate that Orr has a sincere commitment to fighting for better healthcare coverage for Southern Arizonans—he joined with Democrats to get Gov. Jan Brewer’s Medicaid expansion across the finish line, earning him the enmity of many conservatives within the GOP—as well as education spending. We’d rather have more Democrats in the House of Representatives, but we also like the idea of a Republican who can represent our interests within the GOP caucus, even if we disagree with him n many issues. Bottom line: It’s your call.
Legislative District 10:
Bruce Wheeler and Stefanie Mach for Arizona House of Representatives;
Dave Bradley for Arizona Senate
The Democratic trio of Wheeler, Mach and Bradley have done solid work for Southern Arizona and we support their return to the Legislature.
WHO WILL HELP PIMA REBUILD?
Pima Community College
governing board
When we interviewed Mark Hanna and Michael Duran, Pima Community College governing board candidates for the District 1 seat that’s been held by Brenda Evan since 2001, they both said they made an agreement early on when they signed on as candidates to keep their campaigns civil and not go on the attack. The only criticism, offered by Hanna, was that Duran is a member of the Southern Arizona Leadership Council, a business organization known for an early conservative history that was about pushing a business agenda in almost all facets of Tucson government and community. Duran’s defense was that, as a vice president at Tucson Medical Center, it’s a membership that makes sense and at the same time provides the organization some much-needed diversity and the perspectives that come with that.
Besides that, it can be difficult to really discern many differences between the two men in how they see their tenure on the board or why they feel PCC is important to Tucson—both attended the college and have a personal connection the school that goes beyond business concerns or agendas. They know, first hand, how it changes lives.
If anything, it’s their stories of how they learned that lesson that’s different—with Duran going to the school as a baseball player out of high school trying to figure out what he was going to do with his life and getting direction from some life-changing mentors. For Hanna it was late in life—a retired Costco general manager, who decided to give-back and go back to school in an effort to do that. Hanna went to Pima, then the UA and worked eight years as a counselor with students at Catalina Magnet High School. It was there, working with his students, that he also saw first-hand how Pima and education are life-changing.
However, when asked specific questions about the college and its issues, while Hanna may seem like a candidate who could get stuck in the weeds as a board member, he has impressed Tucson Weekly education and political scribes the most. It takes heart, but it’s also good to hear full answers on the budget and specific issues.
It’s been a long-haul for the college—a PR nightmare that started with a former Chancellor accused of creating hostile work environments and sexual harassment, and then being put on probation with its accreditor, the Higher Learning Commission. With a new Chancellor, the college is moving forward to get off probation, but at times that road still seems rocky. It’s not over yet, so why not put in a new board member who seems to know the dust in all the corners and is willing to talk about it all—Hanna.
HOW TO MAKE SENSE OF THE TUSD BALLOT
The past few TUSD school board election seasons haven’t always made it easy to embrace the democratic process with 13 candidates the last one and 9 this one, with three incumbents running last and two now. Each season, too, has brought in equal shares of political game-playing that are sometimes just plain ridiculous. If this is really about helping students in Tucson’s largest school district, and yes, an oft-beleaguered district at that, well geesh, you’d think the adults who want our vote could act like … well, adults.
Being an adult in this race, however, after now watching two school board election seasons, means really knowing the district, coming to school board meetings regularly, understanding the budget and recognizing the issues facing district’s like TUSD.
Which means, we’re going to ask that, in being adults, that Debe Campos-Fleenor and Don Cotton consider not running again next season. Both continue coming to each debate saying basically the same thing over and over again about class sizes, diversity is good, and touting their business experience. But when asked to specifically answer questions on issues and finance, sometimes it’s been pretty obvious they have no idea what the person is asking. Don’t run again.
There was the issue that came up of Mark Stegeman helping Campos-Fleenor and incumbent Michael Hicks out, hiring petition gatherers to get the less than 500 signatures needed to qualify for the ballot. Hicks seems to have had some trouble figuring out how to report that, while Campos-Fleenor did what’s needed. And to Campos-Fleenor’s credit, we recognize she is still healing from a foot surgery she had last campaign season. But we don’t get having to go this for so little signatures. To me it means you don’t really have the support to help you and that means you shouldn’t run.
However, Michael Hicks supporters can’t use his refusal to vote to close schools in 2012. It was noble and we even liked him for a second when we saw him speak to parents at Brichta Elementary on the Westside. The problem is, we’ve seen firsthand when Hicks wasn’t so noble. we saw him go out during board breaks during the height of the district’s Mexican-American studies debacle and antagonize protesting students. When he embarrassed us further with his answers on the Daily Show, feigning he didn’t know what it was or he was set up, made some of us wonder, but at the same time happy to show the country a taste of what we were dealing (and yes, a few were upset that he leaked the super power of burritos, yet students and white people keep eating them).
It sucks for Mark Stegeman to be in the minority, but Campos-Fleenor and Hicks return aren’t going to help the district, just Stegeman.
Miguel Cuevas wants to return to the district, but no, sorry Miguel, but saying you did this or your leadership did that is ludicrous, or even the latest of being in support of Mexican-American studies. You and Stegeman, when you were leaders of the board, did such a poor job bringing the district and community together during a highly contentious time. People are still hurting—so yes, Cuevas, time to focus on you, your education and your career. What happened to that plan?
Former Pima Community College governing board candidate and PCC adjunct math and science teacher, Francis Saitta, hasn’t shown up to any debate. He runs his campaign making comments on the Tucson Weekly blog and asking statements be read in his place. No interest in answering direct questions from people who take the time to show up at these debates means you don’t deserve their vote.
That leaves us with four remaining candidates. René Bernal, a political newcomer, is an applied software engineer at Honeywell and the product of TUSD. He’s also the son of teachers and that often came out this campaign. While I think he could use some time getting to know the district better from a different perspective, he’s great and we’d love to see him return another election season once that newcomer sheen wears off a bit.
Incumbent Adelita Grijalva, has been on the board more than a decade and she has children in the TUSD system, and while she may be a Democrat Party favorite in a nonpartisan election, it may be time for her to step back, continue to earn her political chops in other ways. It’s understandable that during her time on the board she hasn’t always been part of a majority, but it’s difficult to hear her say that during her time she’s seen six superintendents come and go, and school closures and more further damage to the district’s credibility. It’s also been difficult in the past to hear her say that it’s OK for the district to drag its feet in some areas of its 40-year-old desegregation plan because we have a new superintendent. That really disrespects the six-month, very difficult work that all the deseg plaintiffs did together with the school district. At some point, can incumbents make a difference if these are the excuses? It doesn’t feel that way.
We threw our full support behind Jenifer Darland for a reason. She may seem like a political newcomer, but she isn’t. The co-founder of Arizona Education Network that brought parents and public education supporters together for all political parties, Darland is savvy about our problems with public education funding and the state legislature. She an amazing researcher, and while she has a TUSD parent perspective, she’s a fervent public education supporter and knowledgeable.
However, let’s not forget about Betts Putnam-Hidalgo. She ran in 2012 and has further earned a reason to be in office—continuing to show up to almost every school board meeting and actively speaks out—especially on the desegregation plan and its haphazard implementation. Before she ran in 2012, she was an ardent supporter of Mexican-American studies, but it was particularly interesting to see ideas she brought up during her last campaign, come to light: using closed schools for the community and increasing solar projects at those sites and other school buildings. And when it comes to the issues, the minutia of budgets and funding and teacher issues, she has it down.
THE PROPOSITIONS
Prop 122
Proposition 122 is another effort to get the state tangled up in expensive legal fights with the federal government. It would allow state lawmakers or the public to declare a federal law to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution—a designation normally reserved for the courts—and then block the state or local governments from spending any money helping with the enforcement of that federal law. We honestly can’t see anything good coming out of this, but we can see plenty of bad unintended—and in some cases, intended—consequences. We say vote no.
Prop 303
If approved by voters, Proposition 303 would allow terminally ill patients to use experimental drugs that haven’t yet been approved by the FDA. We are a tiny bit skeptical of this one, but we’re leaning toward a Yes vote with the hope that we’re not opening the door to snake-oil salesmen who are going to give desperately sick people false hope.
Prop 304
Proposition 304 would boost the salaries of state lawmakers to from the current $24,000 to $35,000 annually. On the one hand, it does seem like the pay is pretty low considering the importance of the work; one the other hand, we’re unimpressed with the quality of most of the people who are winning primaries these days. We’re voting no.
Prop 415
Proposition 415 would allow Pima County to sell up to $22 million in bonds to build a new animal-care center to replace the current facility, which is nearly a half-century old. Opponents have made a big deal about the price tag, but it comes down to less than four bucks a year for the average county resident, which really isn’t asking too much—and that’s assuming the cost hit the maximum. The county has worked in recent years to reduce the number of dogs and cats that are euthanized and increase the number who are adopted, which is a great thing. That track record is enough for us to urge you to vote yes on Prop 415.
WHO WANTS TO BUY AN ELECTION?
Dark Money Is Flowing Everywhere
Secretary of State candidate Terry Goddard gave the Weekly a call last week after a new TV ad hit screens, funded by $300,000 in “dark money.”
“I’ve been slimed,” Goddard said on Friday as a new ad targeted him as anti-senior because he wouldn’t defend SB 1070, the state’s 2010 anti-immigration law (the truth is, Brewer and the GOP legislature insisted on hiring their own legal team—which lost much of the case when they reached the U.S. Supreme Court) and he didn’t fight against the Affordable Care Act (which wasn’t legally challenged by the state until after Goddard left office).
The ad, from the Koch-brothers linked 60 Plus organization, was part of a $300,000 ad buy in the final stretch of Election 2014. Given that Goddard only gets about $293,000 from the Clean Elections program for the entire general election, it’s clear that he can’t counter the ad directly on TV.
Goddard, a Democrat who is facing Republican state lawmaker Michele Reagan in the campaign, said the targeting was likely driven by polling that shows Goddard in the lead.
“They see Michele in trouble so they’re coming to her defense,” Goddard said.
The former Arizona attorney general speculated that there is another reason the dark-money groups may be coming after him: He has said throughout the campaign that he will try to shine a spotlight onto the growing use of dark money to influence campaigns in Arizona.
“I guess they believe me,” Goddard said.
Dark money is one of the big factors in this year’s election. Nonprofits such Seniors Plus have become a larger force in politics in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. The nonprofits can accept unlimited contributions from corporations and unions, and do not have to reveal the identities of their financial backers.
Such groups—often linked to Arizonan Sean Noble, who has doled out tens of millions of dollars via 501(c)(4) organizations—have poured millions of dollars into statewide campaigns in support of candidates such as Republican gubernatorial candidate Doug Ducey (a frequent political ally of Noble), Republican attorney general candidate Mark Brnovich, and Arizona Corporation Commission candidate Doug Little and Tom Forese (whose dark-money contributions have been linked to APS, an electrical utility that wants to crush Arizona’s fledgling solar industry).
Earlier this week, Goddard—who said that Arizona has become the “Cayman Islands of dark money—joined a number of Democratic state lawmakers to roll out a proposal to regulate dark-money organizations by creating new reporting and audit requirements.
“Dark money is insidious and it’s everywhere,” Goddard said. “Legislators are already rallying around my bill to stop Dark Money in order to scrub this polluting agent out of our politics.”
-Jim Nintzel, jnintzel@tucsonweekly.com
HOW TO VOTE
Polls will be open from 6 a.m. to 7 a.m. on Election Day, Tuesday, Nov. 4. To find your polling location, call the Pima County Recorder’s Office at 724-4350 or visit the website at http://www.recorder.pima.gov/
If you’re received an early ballot, you must send it back in by Friday, Oct. 31. Otherwise, you can drop it off at any polling place.
WHERE THE PARTIES AT?
The Democrats will be celebrating election night at the Tucson Marriot University Park, 880 E. Second Street.
The Republicans will be celebrating at the Sheraton Tucson Hotel and Suites, 5151 E. Grant Road.
Both parties begin at 7 p.m.
This article appears in Oct 30 – Nov 5, 2014.
This year residents of the Metro Water District in Tucson have an alternative choice to the incumbents and their third rate increase in three years. Please make an effort to vote to lower OUR water bills through greater accountability. Support Donovan Hemway, Danny Sargent, and Helen Ireland.
http://www.YourMetroWaterTucsonBoard.com OR
http://www.facebook.com/yourmetrowatertucsonboard
One way that electing Hicks and Campos-Fleenor would help me (as TW puts it) is that we could finally establish an internal auditor position that reports to the board, as many external experts have recommended for years. Recent events surely confirm that need, as district leadership still seems determined to underplay the size of the current operating deficit. (Incidentally, Putnam-Hidalgo and Cotton have also supported creating such an internal auditor, repeatedly and unambiguously.)
You have to be joking. You state,
“We’re endorsing Democrats more or less across the board for the partisan races because we think the GOP’s agenda for the state—more cuts to government, irresponsible fiscal strategies”… “doesn’t bode well for the future.”
The GOP (Republicans, right-wing ideologues) have an agenda? On every turn deliver government unable to function, starving to the point of havoc public agencies the funds they needed to operate. That was a plan?
Fighting the Legislative and Constitutional mandates approved by previous lawmakers and voters over many years with useless law suits resulting in a total waste of taxpayer funds. A fiscal strategy just irresponsible or totally insane?
Republicans, not the voters who happen to register in the party of fiscal conservatives, believers of laws and Constitutional protections of the rights of citizens. Not those Republicans, the few elected ones who join together to sell off our heritages, believe selling state property to give a few friends tax breaks, the ones who are silly enough to mortgage the free and clear State Capitol Buildings then renting the same buildings back is a fiscal strategy? How long a term fiscal strategy?
The people in state government who use the label Republican and think education is a play thing for speculators to fatten their bank accounts and who are willing to privatize government functions for a few greedy operators who can take advantage of stupid legislative policies or croneyism. There should be a way to chase them out of the Republican party except they are the Republican party in this state.
That was simply “irresponsible fiscal strategy” or stupidity? I don’t take exception to your endorsements just the reasons. Bad judgement, wrong decisions, insane thought process, limited foresight, dumb actions, inept Republican leaders, simply,…”pushed under the rug, etc, etc”.
Rebellion and common sense is coming to the Republican voters, two of the Republican incumbents holding state office were effectively kicked out in the Primary Election. Now close examination of some of the balance of Republican candidates before next Tuesday’s election.
Tucson Weekly you didn’t do bad there.
Your comments on the TUSD board election contain so many proofing and punctuation errors it is hard for someone who takes education seriously to acknowledge that your recommendations should even be considered, much less followed. (I refuse to take the time needed to list all the problems, but here is one, in your statement about Jen Darland: “She an amazing researcher….”)
However, I will take the time to address some of the problems with the quality of your thinking about who should serve on the governing board of this very troubled school district that serves somewhere in the neighborhood of 49,000 students. There is a current majority (Grijalva – Foster – Juarez) that has failed to ensure that the district observes proper processes with procurement, hiring, and financial transparency. During the second year the district suffered under their leadership, Awwad resigned and revealed serious problems with the quality of the district’s fiscal planning under the new superintendent this board majority brought into town using an inadvisable hiring process. So you would like us to elect Jen Darland, a Grijalva-endorsed candidate and another member of the same Ann-Eve Pedersen-connected network that has been behind the current board majority? You believe that someone who has been a resolute cheerleader for what has gone on during the past year under Sanchez’s superintendency should be installed as the third person of a new majority (Darland – Foster – Juarez)?
You say “Darland is savvy about our problems with public education funding and the state legislature.” So let her run for the legislature. What is needed on the TUSD board is someone who is savvy about the institutional culture in the district and the many process and policy failures that need to be addressed before the district can begin to function properly and put students’ needs first. Putnam-Hidalgo stands head and shoulders above the rest of the candidates in her knowledge of the district and her readiness to properly address its many problems. Congratulations to you for finally being willing to admit, at the last minute, that she may have some merit as a candidate.
Another thing that is needed on the board, considering the district’s egregious and inexcusable problems with financial transparency and accountability, is someone with sound business and non-profit board experience. You can dismiss Campos-Fleenor as much as you like, for the transparently weak reasons you provide in every article and blog post where you have discussed her, but as someone who saw what happened on one of the TUSD sites after the $17 million deficit fell between ’12-’13 and ’13-’14, I want another individual who knows how to read a spreadsheet, budget appropriately, and hold staff accountable for observing proper financial processes on that board. I’ve listened to Campos-Fleenor discuss her priorities in public forums and I’ve spoken with people who have worked with her. She would be a very constructive contributor to a board committed to accomplishing what is needed in this district: REFORM.
As for your attitude towards Stegeman, which has been revealed in various articles and posts in the weeks leading up to the election: you show childishness and a complete lack of discernment. It is possible to disagree with him strongly on some issues (e.g. MAS), while acknowledging the importance of having a board member who does his homework and brings a properly professional perspective to process and policy issues. If you are incapable of discriminating in this way, you don’t deserve to have a public forum in which to air your views about electoral politics.
Thank you, TW, for doing the hard work and making a pick for the PCC Governing Board seat. Our community college has a lot of catching up to do and your interest will help that to happen.
I do agree with you that the election of either candidate will represent a big improvement and that Mark Hanna is the best of two good choices.
All I know is thanx to the Pima County Recorder’s website showing early voting locales, this rat race is officially over for me. I’m on board with DuVal, Barber – who also supports my tribe’s West Valley Resort whereas Kirkpatrick crossed party lines to vote against, and Rotellini because these Dems support GLBT rights. I don’t support any ballot propositions with the exception of 415, and there’s absolutely no way in Hell I’d ever vote for Terry Goddard, so I wrote in Squidward Tentacles for Secretary of State.
Jim (for this seems to be a signed piece — thanks for that), I am going to wade here into treacherous waters to respond to your comment: “You [Cuevas] and Stegeman, when you were leaders of the board, did such a poor job bringing the district and community together during a highly contentious time.” I readily admit that I made some mistakes during the MAS period, some of which I’ve long since acknowledged and some that might come later, whenever the book on that episode is written. I recently listened to the tapes of a couple of the worst meetings and it was — painful. But there is another side that is left out of most popular accounts, including yours. I did many things and published several opeds and went to many meetings with various stakeholders and put together a carefully crafted (though scorned by many) proposal to achieve some sort of compromise on that issue. (I give John Pedicone credit for mostly similar motivations and actions, though we had some disagreements and he made his own somewhat different set of mistakes.) One reason that this all failed is that the strongest MAS advocates, who drove much of what happened, were unwilling to consider any compromise on what they clearly considered to be a matter of principle. It is not my place to judge anyone, but refusal to budge even an inch is, to use your language, not a position likely to bring the district and community together. After May 2011 I had done everything I knew to do and stood aside (except for a subpoena I had to answer) as the train hit the wall. But up to that point I had tried hard to create some kind of viable middle ground.
Yes, and in answering that subpoena, you shared the MAS classes reminded you of a cult and you quoted a Bircher. That was also very profound. No one needed to compromise. But what the community needed was for someone to show true leadership–and frankly that is something you, Cuevas and Hicks failed. So, great job, and per usual, Mark, love your comments.
Thanks for nothin weakly I already voted and not for your suckers.
Here is a chunk of reality Mark, your viewpoint that ‘the strongest MAS advocates were unwilling to compromise’ shows just how steeped you were and are in a single perspective (privileged white-male). There are many evolved white males; you are not one. Your perspective remains dominant in Tucson, in Arizona, and in the US- no doubt- and much of what is wrong with the world is that the female and ethnic and racial minority perspectives are often disregarded or silenced by those who are threatened by their very presence. The world is no longer as narrow as you would like to keep it.
No one should have been asked to “compromise” on course work that offered a perspective which inspired, engaged and taught- and ultimately rendered positive academic results! We all recall what you offered as a so called compromise: the MAS courses will be taught as electives and not core curriculum courses. This would have brought about a slow but sure death to MAS. Agreement to this suicidal compromise was insulting and when it was immediately rejected, a quick death was imposed. Either way, the death of MAS under your majority rule was destined to take place. Do not pretend for one second that there was ever any dignified and substantive presentation of a “compromise”- because there just wasn’t. We tried explaining to you that students were not going to sign up for a rigorous course without providing equal credit as those who take sister courses in language arts or government (which remain to offer only an Euro-American-centric perspective). You condemned the MAS teachers and Director for not having a curriculum- without examining whether “official” curriculum existed elsewhere in TUSD. Of course, now you know, via the 2014 Curriculum Audit, that the entire District has been void of curriculum.
MAS students and teachers (separately) had asked to meet with the administration time and time again. Both groups were ignored. We asked for the Board to learn more about MAS through its teachers and students. You did not. Both the Board and Dr. Pedicone, with guidance from Martha Durkin- responded by calling out TPS and doubling your TUSD security force. Do you really think this is how one sets up an environment for discussion and civility? How exactly does oppression work in bringing about any understanding? Oppression did not take place for a week or a month- it was a year of prodding and investigating and provoking. It was a year of gagging all of us. It was a painful time; one that should not be forgotten and one from which we each should take away truths- if nothing else. Your post is far from presenting any truth, in fact it is delusional. It would be so bold and courageous of you to one day- admit the wrongs you committed and the harm that you brought about. Until then you will be seen as what you are- a man without any social intelligence. Authentic intelligence goes far beyond an IQ and PHD.
See and tell the TRUTH Stegeman says: “You condemned the MAS teachers and Director for not having a curriculum- without examining whether “official” curriculum existed elsewhere in TUSD. Of course, now you know, via the 2014 Curriculum Audit, that the entire District has been void of curriculum.”
First off, the issue was not so much that MAS had no articulated curriculum, but that the TUSD Board was allowing graduation credit for courses that did not even approach meeting state standards in the subject areas the credit was being offered. No one had to wait for any 2014 curriculum audit to know that the TUSD Board had abdicated its responsibility to make sure the district met the state standards for curriculum. Judge Kowal, in his decision upholding Huppenthal’s decision that TUSD violated the law with the MAS classes lambasted the Governing Board for its failure to do so, and not just for the MAS classes.
By the way, your assertion that the coursework was rigorous is totally risible. Anyone who has seen the coursework for the high school juniors and seniors in MAS classes knows that it was much closer to the sixth grade level than anything else.
As far as authentic intelligence goes, I’d say the bottom line is having the requisite judgment to separate fact from fiction. Your post fails to do that, as was just pointed out in only two of the many instances that could have been raised. I bet you still believe that 98+% of MAS students graduated…even though TUSD’s statistician proved that only about 84% of MAS students graduated, the same percentage as students who never took a single MAS class.
Mark and Marty read the Cabrera et al. (2012) report and the Cabrera et al. (2014), which will be published in the American Educational Research Journal, on the efficacy of MAS program.
I will place my confidence in the studies of the efficacy of MAS which have been conducted by credentialed experts- external to the District. In the period of one month we have seen how TUSD so easily flipped its numbers relative to the budget. Certainly it has done so in other areas. My point in responding to Mark Stegeman’s comment, was to remind everyone that the “compromise” which was referenced by Mark, was really NO compromise at all. He offered to either kill MAS slowly or have it killed immediately. As stated earlier- this was NO compromise.
We have Horne, Huppenthal, Pedicone, Stegeman, Hicks, Cuevas and Sugiyama to thank for the demise of MAS. Each played their part and each brought about great division within this community. (Remember Sugiyama- the appointed Board member who worked only a few doors down from Stegeman’s office at the U of A! Stegeman almost got away with that maneuver without notice. ) Stegeman’s bogus “compromise” was used as yet another means to make “the strongest MAS advocates” appear to be irrational and to portray himself as the one who tried so hard to reason with ‘them.’ For months he would tell people that he ‘tried saving MAS’ but that unreasonable people just would not listen to reason. These are masterful manipulative mind games that Stegeman plays. His lack of social intelligence seems to allow him to work his manipulations almost in a numbed state, as he brings about real harm to individuals, to an institution and to a community. Compassion seems to be totally absent.
As to the ongoing rants about ‘MAS not meeting state standards’ which continue- a thorough examination of the 2014 TUSD Curriculum Audit indicates that without a TUSD curriculum- there has been NO alignment to state standards. It is so easy to for some to continue the attacks on MAS based on myths or contorted information. My comments, although spurred on by M &M’s comments are really are not for them. I have little hope that their worlds will ever be expanded and inclusive. My comments are for TW readers who think beyond the myths and manipulations that are so often spewed and attempted by the Martys and Marks of the world.
See and Tell the TRUTH …: I have admitted errors. You have not. That makes my point.
Mark……..you have no point. Did you admit that there was NO real compromise offered as you have touted? No. Have you admitted that you and your board majority along with Martha Durkin and John Pedicone militarized Board Meetings? No. Have you admitted that MAS was methodically singled out by Horne and Huppenthal and that you bought into their targeted and racist campaign? No. Have you admitted that you helped divide this city along ethnic and racial lines? No. You may be a hero among haters (which is what got you elected), but you are one of Tucson’s historical villains. Killing MAS was a form of ethnic cleansing. You not only allowed it; you took charge of getting the killing done once Horne and Huppenthal handed it to you. We all have choices to make in life, many of which fall on the side of good and others which fall on the side of evil. You took the side of evil. Stop trying to justify it because there are those of us who recognize you for who you are and what you have done.
marty
Rodolfo Acuña’s Occupied America: A History of Chicanos is a college and graduate level text that we utilized for our American History / Chicana-o Perspectives class; Luis Urrea’s Devil’s Highway is another college level read that we utilized in our Junior English/Chicana-o Literature class. Both of these texts, just two of a number of examples of rich, rigorous and engaging literature that were utilized in MAS coursework, were ones that mark stegeman’s was so fearful and ignorant of. 6th grade level material they are not. stegeman’s testimony against MAS, its curriculum and pedagogy, in the ALJ hearings as a “cult” (while noticeably shaking – listen to the audio, it’s comical) further demonstrated his personal witch hunt he was determined to carry out. Marty and Mark, what privileges you both to the extent that you feel no need to substantiate your claims?
From what I have seen in the last year, I find it impossible to believe that either a Stegeman-controlled or a Grijalva/Pedersen-affiliated majority will be able to end the divisive patterns of action and speech the district has been immersed in for far too long. We need to move, as a district, into a space where we can stop savaging one another and we can begin to work together to meet students’ needs.
Please vote for Putnam-Hidalgo and Campos-Fleenor to bring an end to the factionalism on the TUSD board.
Rodolfo Acunas Occupied America deserves to be read, critiqued and analyzed by students both for its ideological message and its accuracy in factual assertions. After reading it I have found that in both areas it proves to be a divisive and inappropriate book for most high school kids. It would only be appropriate for those kids who already have a background in research techniques, advanced reading comprehension and a willingness for critical analysis. It would also be important to see how it was being used in the classroom. These books were being cherry picked by MAS teachers and not being read or critiqued in their entirety.
I will be the first to acknowledge that this is how most history classes operate at the high school level, cherry picked, factually questionable information presented to students who are ill equipped to question the veracity of it.
Replacing a bad Euro-centric perspective with an equally bad Chicano-centric perspective was not progress and the MAS program failed students due to the hubris of it’s leadership.
We should be teaching children how to think for themselves, not what they should be thinking…..
Betts Putnam Hildago runs on a feel good agenda of smaller class sizes, restoration of MAS, and an abject refusal to close any more schools. When she was asked how she would pay for this very expensive agenda, she replied that placing solar panels on school grounds would generate income. AYFKM?
I give the TW endorsements about a 15% chance of winning. Barber may be the closest, just because of voter laziness. But the Dems have thrown a whole deck of race cards out there and people are seeing through their lies. They have accomplished nothing but more division.
Protect the polls. It’s all they have left.
Look at just how right I was …yesterday. Called it almost to the letter.
Wake up people. You can smoke dope in Oregon. The streetcar leaves in an hour.
Even when Bill Clinton’s popularity was at his lowest, he still went out to campaigning for his colleges, but yet Obama was very quiet during this last one which asks the question was he quiet because he was afraid it would be detrimental to the Democrats election chances or did was he quiet because he has already planned to run our country his way no matter what the out come was?