Michael Hicks declared bankruptcy in August, 2007. From then until his Chapter 13 bankruptcy case was completed in April, 2012, he made payments in a court-approved plan to pay a portion of what he owed to creditors who filed a claim in the case. There’s nothing uncommon about the situation Hicks was in, and it normally wouldn’t merit mention. However, he is one of five members of the TUSD school board who oversee the district’s budget, which makes his personal financial responsibility a relevant concern. It’s especially relevant because Hicks has made the district’s finances a major part of his campaign, accusing Superintendent Sanchez of fiscal irresponsibility. He has also demonstrated a lack of care in reporting his campaign finances and recently made a statement to a group of students about college loans which was careless and irresponsible.
Here is a general picture of Hicks’ bankruptcy, taken from public records. I went over the documents with someone who understands bankruptcy documents and procedures far better than I do to make sure I presented the situation with a reasonable level of accuracy.
On August 2, 2007, Hicks filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 13 of the bankruptcy code, which provides for a court approved payment plan generally determined based on a debtor’s “disposable income” after considering his living expenses, mortgage expenses, etc. At the time, he had debts totaling more than $225,000. In approximate figures (the exact figures differ on documents throughout the bankruptcy process), he owed a total of $150,000 on his home and his car, $47,000 in credit card debt, $16,000 in student loans, $7,000 in personal loans and $6,000 in medical bills. Three of the six credit card companies he owed money to sued him before he filed for bankruptcy, with one seeking garnishment. During the years he was paying down his debt, the bankruptcy trustee filed actions three times because he was delinquent in his payments. When he came out of bankruptcy on May 30, 2012, he had paid about 14 cents on the dollar on the debts other than the house and car, where he continued to make his normal payments outside of the bankruptcy plan.
Hicks has recently created a new one page campaign website, hicksis4kids.com. His earlier five page campaign website can be found at hicks4tusd.com. It includes a personal statement, part of which emphasizes “full disclosure,” “bringing transparency to the Tucson community regarding myself” and a commitment “to continue to bring fiscal responsibility to the district.”
”Those who know me, knows [sic] that I believe in full disclosure, and in bringing transparency to the Tucson community regarding myself and the business of TUSD. It is my intention to call for and listen to public input on important matters, and to encourage fresh ideas from students, parents, teachers and tax payers. I am confident that if we work together, we will be able to improve the TUSD experience for everyone, and provide our children with the best quality education they deserve. I want to continue to bring fiscal responsibility to the district.”
Hicks raised the issue of fiscal responsibility at least twice during his campaign in recent weeks. He joined with candidate Debe Campos-Fleenor in telling the district how it should spend the money it hasn’t yet received — and may not receive any time in the near future — from the $317 million the court has ordered the state to pay to Arizona’s K-12 schools. Implied in the Hicks/Campos-Fleenor statement is that the two of them, along with Mark Stegeman, are the only ones who can stop the district from squandering the yet-to-be-paid funds.
He also wrote a letter to departing Deputy Superintendent Yousef Awwad asking him to give an overview of the district’s finances. Awwad’s response cautioned of a possible $15 million deficit for this school year, which was disputed in the most recent TUSD board meeting where the 2013-14 finalized budget was presented and $14 million in cash reserves were projected for the end of the 2014-15 school year.
Because Hicks has based so much of his campaign on his concern over district’s finances and his recommendations for the best ways for the district to spend funds, his recent financial problems take on a greater relevance.
Hicks’ reporting of his campaign spending indicates a possible lack of care when it comes to financial matters. Mark Stegeman made an in-kind contribution of $1,200 to Hicks’ campaign and to Campos-Fleenor’s campaign to pay for a petition circulator to gather signatures. Campos-Fleenor reported the $1,200 contribution in a timely manner on her pre-primary campaign finance report before the contribution was reported in the press. Hicks’ campaign finance report for the same period had zeroes in every box, indicating that his campaign hadn’t received or spent any money on his campaign. The $1,200 contribution was later included in the post-primary report he submitted in the middle of September after the information was in the press and Stegeman said publicly that he paid for the circulator.
Hicks recently gave a talk to a group of students and parents at Mansfield Middle School which was the subject of a KVOA news report because Hicks told the audience, “I got my degree from the University of Connecticut.” In fact, he received his Bachelor of Science degree from an online school, Charter Oak State College, in Connecticut. In another statement he made during his talk which wasn’t reported, he said that if anyone who wants to go to college needs help getting student loans, it’s no problem, he “knows lots of people who can help you with loans.”
“If you need help getting into college, let me know. I know lots of people who can help you with loans and all that, don’t worry about that.”
With all the recent reporting about the burden of student loans on college graduates, it’s irresponsible for Hicks to tell students and parents not to worry about taking out college loans. It’s doubly irresponsible given that part of his bankruptcy involved student loans of approximately $16,000, something which Hicks has not made public. That would have been relevant information to the parents in the audience to help them understand the importance of making careful, financially responsible decisions about how to pay for their children’s college educations.
I called Hicks to see if he had any comments about his bankruptcy. He said he didn’t have anything to add, that everything is in the court records. “It is what it is,” he said.
This article appears in Oct 16-22, 2014.
Safier…you are a first rate GUTTER Journalist!!!
I do not support Michael Hicks because of his record as a Member of the TUSD Board…NOT….because of any Personal Financial problems he might have had in the past. You might do well to remember…”there but for the Grace of God go I”
The Tucson Weekly would do well to stop giving you a forum for your Garbage/Despicable Articles.
The other side has made hay out of a $20 traffic fine not paid by Fred DuVal, It’s all on the table in this new horrible word of politics.
Mo Udall often said the Politician’s Prayer: Oh Lord, let my words be soft and tender for tomorrow I may eat them.
I don’t think a single personal bankruptcy should disqualify a person from holding some offices. But to run asking to have dominion over budgets while claiming to have the answer for serious economic issues when one has had a personal bankruptcy that took years to resolve is certainly cause for pause. Hicks’ irresponsible personal spending is bad, but his gross exaggeration of his education is even worse because it’s an outright lie rather than a sin of omission.
Wow here we go again , I suppose none of you have ever misspoken about something in your life. Wow he had a bankruptcy, I know a lot of people with those, some bigger politicians then Hicks, the name Clinton comes to mind. Maybe he learned something from this bankruptcy that would benefit TUSD. I wouldn’t discredit any of the people I know going through them , times have been hard for a long time now. Maybe you haven’t had to go through one Mr. Safier, good for you, but don’t criticize someone for it. Remember there are other board members , you make it out like Hicks will be the dictator of TUSD . This was a shameful attack that you never should have undertaken. It not only discredits you but the Tucson Weekly also. What skeletons are in your closet, or in Grihalvas, Or Sanchez’. You never took up my challenge to write my story about what TUSD administration , and Grijalva did to me .Trust me this story will shock you. Why don’t you do that before the election, so people get another view of Grijalva and Sanchez. The so pretty one. Stop these vicious attacks , you can be a better person than that.
He had $54,000 in credit card and personal loans. He bought a car on credit. This would indicate a person living far beyond their means.
This was seven years ago, not back when he was a young man. It’ relevant and shows a lack of self-discipline. Also people who lack self-control with money are more subject to being bribed.
This is new to me and, unlike others here, it is well worth noting before my vote. This article reports documented legal information duly recorded in proper departments, and therefore is not at all a sleazy, rumor-based piece of gossip or insult. “It is what it is,” comes from Hicks himself. And speaking for myself as a single voter, I will never forget when Hicks got up on national TV and, despite his weak excuses afterwards, exhibited some of the stupidest behavior I have ever seen in an elected official – anywhere. He doesn’t even have a sharp ax to grind.
Mr. Safier, you claim to be a retired school teacher. Now those have become vulgarities as the result of your shameful truth telling. Of course I will allow you the chance to feed my words back to me when you post the same negative articles on the other candidates. Otherwise, your entire life of teaching has been a waste of the taxpayers money and the children who passed through your classrooms are an example of why this state lags the nation in student abilities.
Personal attacks have no business here. Let’s all remember how the left rallied around Bill Clinton, even making excuses that “what happened in his personal life had no business being discussed.” The nation could have been blackmailed over it. We were lucky that Hillary was so power hungry that she continued to ignore him. Just another political narcissist.
The progressive left has proven what a two faced bitter bunch they can be when they want to get their way.
I am disappointed that the TW published this. Are there any journalistic standards anymore?
So I wonder why this rag, the Tuc. Wkly., doesn’t do a write up on Adelita Grijalva’s support/membership in La Raza, a violent threat making org.? When you threaten “violent revolution” to take back the SW U.S., they should be put on a Terrorist Watch list. Instead, just like what’s happening with radical Muslims, they are being incorporated into our local and fed. govt.s. Now we have a POTUS who’s Muslim as well as J. Brennan, Chief of Sec., And then there’s several members in his cabinet that are not only Muslim but La Raza as well. It’s no wonder our country is coming apart at the seams. The retarded liberals voted in traitors and sicko homosuctuals.
The Gehalva mafia would never have to take bankruptcy because they all feed at the unlimited public trough.
Harlan, If you’re going to resort to name calling you could at least try to spell the names correctly.
The Gehalva mafia would never have to take bankruptcy because they all feed at the unlimited public trough.” Not to mention the continuous money orders that her and her father, Raul, gets from down South of the Border! It has been said that the DEA has a lg. file on both and is checking into various license plates on vehicles parked near their homes with Sonoran registry.
Anyone who has filed bankruptcy no matter what the reason does not need to be administrating public funds!
That like hiring a bank robber to be a bank president!:-)
Geez, Rick. Are you one of Mr. Safier’s former students?
I have a sister, a very responsible Mother of three who had to file for bankruptcy after her bum of a husband ran HIS business into the ground and then took up with another woman. She rebuilt her life through the courts and has raised those children to be responsible adults, like her and not like their Father. I therefore take extreme exception to anyone, and I mean ANYONE who mischaracterizes another persons plight as though that person was completely irresponsible. This article is trash and anyone who believes the same as this author has my personal contempt. And I will be more than happy to have a 1 vs 1 discussion with anyone, anytime about this.
Famous politicians who’ve declared bankruptcy: Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, William McKinley, George McGovern and U.S. Grant.
Hicks has established a record as a TUSD board member, it would be more enlightening to focus on that record in considering his candidacy. More to the point has Hicks ever been accused of squandering TUSD funds, personally benefiting from his position on the board, patronage or nepotism? Now those are issues germane to the political discussion.
Both Safier’s approach this fall to writing about TUSD board candidates (very selective application of high standards, transparently partisan intent) and the responses to this article about Hicks’s bankruptcy illustrate the current problems with the factionalized nature of the board and the district. Within the institutional culture of TUSD, decisions about whom to support are made based on personal relationships / personal loyalty / personal benefit. They are not made, as they should be, based on the answers to questions like these: Who is qualified and what are their qualifications? Who, given their personal history, their educational and work experience and their local relationships, is capable of behaving with thorough-going professionalism and impartiality? Which two people, when you look at the overall composition of the board, will contribute most to breaking up the factionalism and creating a working group that can begin to address the district’s grave problems?
Rick Spanier: I am generally a fan of your commentary, but I will have to differ with you on this point. The impact on our site of the $17 million deficit that fell between the ’12-’13 and ’13-’14 school years was brutal. Basic processes essential to the school’s proper functioning were interrupted and / or were only maintained through the use of volunteer labor in a way that volunteer labor should never have to be used. Who was responsible for this? Who controlled the board majority (Stegeman) and who constituted it (Hicks was one of them) in the period leading up to this catastrophic failure of planning? Answer those questions and you will have a better sense of whether it will be a good idea to vote for both Hicks and Campos-Fleenor and give Stegeman another go at controlling the majority.
“Think About It” and “Also Thinking About It” who commented on Safier’s “Notes from the TUSD Board Meeting” are correct about Stegeman and the character of the majority he led. I see the good Stegeman contributes and I believe that he can be a positive contributor as a member of the minority — if the majority finds a way of working constructively with him and doesn’t mercilessly reject his ideas, no matter how sound they are, as this majority has done — but Stegeman has his personal projects and issues and they have in some cases been eccentric, extremely divisive, and very bad for the district. Moreover, they have distracted the district from focusing on what it needs to focus on: building a culture of professionalism capable of keeping everyone’s attention focused on how to meet students needs and how to properly manage the district’s finances.
A TUSD Parent: I enjoy your insightful comments and thank you for the compliment. My point was that Hicks has an established record as a board member, good or bad depending on one’s viewpoint. Whatever his, or any other board member’s personal issues might be, we have more substantive evidence of his qualifications to sit on the board; in this case what has Hicks done as a board member to prove himself incapable of making sound financial decisions? Has he been reckless or asleep at the wheel? Safier could have provided a service over the past few months by providing something of substance instead of blind partisan attacks and claiming the cover of “blogger.” He chose not to and damaged his own credibility assuming the role of party hack.
(Concerning Stegeman’s majority I was under the impression that the board majority was led by Adelita Grijalva with Foster and Juarez siding with her. Am I wrong?)
When the mud slinging is over in two weeks we will have a new board, hopefully one that is concerned more with the districts students and teachers and less with maintaining a bloated administration using part time substitutes as low cost cannon fodder to maintain their fiefdoms.
Once again, just think what they would have done with the money if the legislature had given it to them. There is no accountability with this school district. And that is allowed starting at the top.
Safier, mud slinging including by you, who claims to be a writer as well as a retired educator {which by the standards of my sister who began at TUSD in ’73 and opts to continue teaching instead of retiring, you are severely wanting. To paraphrase; those who can, teach. Those who can’t become administrators or retire} should never have occurred.
Rick: Grijalva has controlled the majority since January of 2013, but when I first started paying attention to TUSD board politics, in the summer of 2012, at the beginning of the last school year before the $17million deficit fell, Stegeman controlled a majority that included Hicks. If I understand the election cycles correctly, this majority was in place between January of 2011 and December of 2012. (No doubt if I am wrong about this, Safier or one of the commenters will correct me.) This would have been the period during which the district, if it had been engaging in responsible long-range fiscal planning, could have done something to keep the cuts caused by the $17million deficit from being as disruptive as they were.
If your point is that decisions about whom to support should be made based on candidates’ records as elected officials, I agree with you and urge voters to consider the quality of financial planning that took place during this period (January 2011-December 2012). Consider the fact that another local district (Catalina Foothills, District 16) managed to see cuts coming and engage in successful collective planning that prevented the worst of the potential damage from falling on their schools. TUSD did not.
My personal opinion is that Hicks may be a nice guy (my experience with him indicates that he is), but he is not a good candidate for a TUSD board position. Like you, I hope that the new board will be less factionalized and more concerned with students and teachers. My assessment, as I have written elsewhere, is that we have little hope of that unless we are able to elect both Campos-Fleenor and Putnam-Hidalgo, thus preventing control of the board by either Grijalva-affiliated or Stegeman-affiliated majorities.
Rick, Yes you are incorrect about the time period that A TUSD Parent is speaking about. The majority at that time was led by Stegeman w/ Hicks, Sugiyama and sometimes Cuevas.
If you want a trip down memory lane to revisit the days of the Stegeman majority, consider its last gasp in December 2012. The board was voting on the USP, along with various objections to specific provisions. Grijalva threatened to cast a LONE no vote because the motion included TUSD’s objection to the USP requiring Culturally Relevant classes as core curriculum. Stegeman’s attempt to convince Grijalva that the CRC issue could be severed and that she could voice her opposition to TUSD’s objection, while still voting for the USP was successful. He did this by offering up a decoy motion that he knew would have no effect on the issue.
Stegeman brought shame to the board. He did this despite the fact that Grijalva’s vote would not affect passage of the motion. He just wanted the objection to CRC to move forward with apparent unanimous support.
It was a disgusting display of gamesmanship that Stegeman could not hide from the public. Imagine the crap he pulls that goes unseen. God help us if he controls the majority again.
To be accurate, Stegeman was not the board president in December 2012. But he led the majority on the CRC issue and he was enabled in his deception by then-Board President Miguel Cuevas. Anyone want to bring back Miguel?
I believe I’ve read an account of the episode Ms. Happel mentions elsewhere. Stories like this are part of what makes TUSD what it is, and they are part of why the board fails to function properly. On the board, memories of past wrongs and the desire to hurt opponents who have hurt you in the past seem to taint the quality of decision making. Among voters who have observed the way the board functions, fear of the return of an abusive majority and / or loyalty to the faction which has heard your case or forwarded your cause seem to be frequent and powerful motivators in this election cycle. Given the sorts of things that have happened in the past, it’s no wonder.
As a parent whose children’s educational program has been damaged by the prevalence of this kind of Balkanized behavior in the district, I hope that the majority of voters will avoid this way of making decisions and will analyze the current field of candidates carefully for their potential capacity to improve the quality of collegiality, professionalism and responsible financial planning the board is able to offer.
Please don’t vote for candidates just because they belong to the right faction or just because they have been endorsed by someone who has forwarded your cause. Vote for them because a careful study of their record and / or qualifications indicate that they show every sign of being able to take the board to a higher level of functioning than we’ve seen in the past.
Recently one of the commenters on Safier’s posts quoted from a 1986 speech in which Dr. Houston said this: “The board may be the most visible example of this, but it’s more than the board. It’s between parents and board members, board members and teachers, teachers and administrators. This whole district has become programmed, over a period of time, to conflict…” In my experience, this is still true in 2014, almost 30 years later.
Can we end this modus operandi in the district? If we stop it at the top (at the board level), is there perhaps some hope of stopping it in the middle administration and in the schools?
Thanks for the clarifications Jana and TUSD parent. You’re both correct and I was commenting on the current board debacle led by Grijalva. TUSD, I agree with your endorsements, let’s hope for the best.
It is interesting that Think Strategically seems to believe that “memories of past wrongs” leads to “Balkanized behavior” which can be avoided if voters “analyze the current field of candidates carefully for their potential capacity to improve the quality of collegiality, professionalism and responsible financial planning the board is able to offer.” However, I don’t believe that memories of past wrongs inhibits a thoughtful analysis of the candidates.
To the contrary, I think that FORGETTING or IGNORING past bad conduct inhibits such an analysis. If you don’t consider the effect of Stegeman’s past behavior on the quality of the collegiality and professionalism of the board, then you can’t properly evaluate what a board majority of Stegeman, Hicks and Campos-Fleenor might look like. My evaluation that such a majority would not help to end the dysfunction is not the result of something as facile as Balkanization or factionalism. It’s based on past behavior and the same type of analysis that Think Strategically urges.
Rick: Thanks. Perhaps we’ll both speak in the call to the audience in 2015 board meetings if the composition of the board changes as we hope it will.
Ms. Happel: As I’ve said elsewhere, I don’t think a Stegeman controlled majority would be constructive. Nor, given what I’ve seen during the last year, do I believe a Grijalva-affiliated majority would be constructive. Just to be clear, what I hope for is this composition on the board beginning in January 2015, with newly elected members in CAPS:
Foster, Juarez
Stegeman, CAMPOS-FLEENOR
PUTNAM-HIDALGO
We’ll see what happens on November 4.
My money is on the outcome of that election being rigged by the 3rd. Mark my words.
Update:
8 months later the teachers patents and admins are fed up…
https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2015/06/03/anonymous-calls-on-tusds-sanchez-to-resign/