Wednesday afternoon the press released the news that Greg Miller, current president of the state Board of Education, quit. Not only will he no longer be board president, but he says he plans to leave the board entirely. Miller and Ed Supe Diane Douglas have feuded since she stepped into office in January, with Ducey generally taking Miller’s side, so it’s surprising to hear that, according to Howard Fischer’s article, Ducey may be behind the ouster.

Greg Miller said aides to the governor told him they wanted him out as the top board official. Miller said Ducey, who is due to make new board appointments as early as this week, believed the change would help smooth over what has been at best a rocky relationship between the board and state schools chief Diane Douglas.

Miller is the CEO of Challenge charter school in Glendale, and his wife Pamela is executive director and vice president. His daughter Wendy is principal. The school appears to be doing well, as do the Millers. According to the school’s 2012 tax forms, Greg made $121,875, as well as $26,956 in “Retirement and other deferred compensation.” His wife Pamela made the same. Wendy made $99,167. There’s the question out there whether Challenge charter benefits from Miller’s school board presidency, but it’s only a question. I’ve never seen any evidence that the school benefits from his political influence.

Which makes this paragraph from Fischer’s article fascinating, especially the passage I’ve highlighted in bold.

[Miller] said he agreed to quit [the board] if he could control the wording of the press release, the timing of the announcement and got some assurances that the charter school he runs would get “political protections that I no longer could provide.”

Fischer, a very careful reporter, put quotes around the words, “political protections that I no longer could provide,” meaning they’re Miller’s words. Is Miller saying his school has benefitted from political protection? Why would that be necessary? Is he implying he’s afraid Douglas might use her office to target the school, or is there something else we should know?

I’m guessing Miller’s statement will be clarified sometime in the near future. Stay tuned.

This article appears in Aug 11-17, 2016.

11 replies on “Greg Miller Out At the State Board of Education”

  2. It will be a “reform” candidate, meaning no,”more money for REAL public schools” candidates need apply. It woll be a Phoenix area, Goldwater, maybe recycled legislative , crony.

  3. Just amazing. A private school president whose family clears almost half a million per year out of the school was running our school board. Only in Arizona.

  4. Anyone who has lived in Arizona for more than a couple of years knows that politics in Arizona have always been about favoritism, nepotism, cronyism and a host of “-isms” that take from the poor (the people of Arizona) and give to the rich (politicians, special interests and, well, the rich).

    What makes Arizona different from those other states with similar governments, and South American dictatorships, is our politicians – not the best that money can buy – have no long-term loyalties and will turn on each other if they think it is politically expedient or potentially profitable. This is the only thing that keeps them in check (more or less, but as of late more less than more).

    Living in Arizona is like living in Hollywood’s version of the Old West. We the people are the homesteaders and pioneers just trying to make a living and a new life in this beautiful and rugged land, while our politicians are the rustlers and outlaws determined to take everything from us the easy way – not with guns in this case, but with “laws” and “propositions” – and then a stranger come to town and promises real law and order and the people vote for him or her and then we discover they are just another outlaw carpet bagger intent on stealing money and raping the land, or is it raping the people and stealing the land – whatever.

  6. You seem to be so wrong Frances Perkins. Sometimes I think you folks are hopeless, clueless and solution less.

    But you should get some cheese to go with your whine. Now apologize.

  7. sgsmith: It would be a shame if you wasted so much good insight in nothing more than standard-issue cynicism.

    You’ve left out the proper citizens’ role, which is to observe, participate, comment, make INFORMED votes and apply collective pressure where needed. Much can be accomplished to keep our governance from going off the rails if the citizenry does its job, but it does require doing the work of organizing and civic participation, not just being a solitary voice.

    Cf. Tucson Residents for Responsive Government, https://tucsontrrg.org

    Daniel S: the Vail parent association helped get Prop 123 passed. Vail is a relatively conservative constituency that has become an active lobbying presence in Arizona:

    http://tucson.com/news/local/education/parent-group-in-vail-successful-in-advocating-for-school-funding/article_a1b403c0-60ac-11e6-8252-330369ba5163.html

    http://www.vailparentnetwork.org

  8. Collective Action Makes a Difference,

    Fortunately for me, my cynicism (one of those “-isms” I wrote of earlier) is only surpassed by my tolerance of those who would judge me without knowing who I am.

    Nevertheless, it has been my experience that those who collectively engage in the political process, no matter how well meaning and committed, are like voices crying in a wilderness unless they have the financial means to overcome those who have been gaming the system for a very long time.

    Not-so-recent history has also demonstrated how some of those trying to work collectively – the nascent Taxed Enough Already (TEA) party – were initially co-opted by naïve Republican operatives who thought they could control them and ultimately by more nefarious people behind the scene to put our nation into this post thermo-nuclear partisan political apocalyptic landscape that has delivered a 2016 presidential race worthy of combat in the Thunder Dome, but I digress.

    Stop with the links and use your own words to express your opinion, otherwise it’s just spam.

  9. sgsmith: The links were to provide information, to those interested, about a couple of groups that are making a constructive difference in holding elected officials in Arizona governance accountable. They were offered as evidence to back up the words I used when I expressed the opinion that collective action matters. The latter group’s increasing influence is relevant to understanding the decision that was just made about filling the post on the state board of education, the subject of Safier’s blog post here.

    You seem, in general, to have good insights into what’s going on in Arizona. My personal opinion is that it would be a better state if those who share your awareness of the problems would not conclude, as you seemed to above, that there is no solution, though I admit it can be tempting to take that position when you take a good hard look at what goes on here.

    As for collective action not going anywhere without money to back it, I am encouraged when I consider the slim margin of victory for Prop 123, and then the Yes campaign’s VS. the No campaign’s funding levels. Money is a factor. It is not the only factor, and there are still some ways to get things done without the Koch brothers or others of their ilk backing you.

  11. Sorry Debra. Those appointments, by law, have to go to a public school superintendent and to a public school teacher. As they are, they are good appointments to designated seats. Roger Jacks was a good low key, knowledgable superintendent from outside Phonix and Tucson, for once. Calvin is a good man. We’ll see in the at large seats. Maybe another Supreme Court packing type appointment, like two more Clint Bolicks.

Comments are closed.