A lot has been said about the 13 budget bills making their way through the Arizona Legislature this week—and there’s quite a bit that could concern Southern Arizonans, including deep cuts to education and health care.
But last night’s bill covering funding for public safety had a strange clause in it, even by current legislative standards.
From the Joint Legislative Budget Committee’s summary:
29. Shift language governing the Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission (GIITEM) local enforcement grants from a General Appropriation Act footnote to permanent law. Monies deposited in the GIITEM Fund can be used for employer sanctions, smuggling, gang, and immigration enforcement. Allocates the first $1.6 million to the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and the next $500,000 to the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office. Monies given to Sheriffs’ Offices do not require further approval by the county board of supervisors. Remaining monies may be used for agreements with cities, counties and other entities at a 3:1 match rate. Excludes Maricopa and Pinal Counties from the matching requirements. Excludes Pima County from funding. Requires contracting law enforcement agencies to verify legal status of suspected illegal aliens and gang members. Requires expenditure reporting to JLBC for any expenditures not previously identified.
Essentially, this sets up Department of Public Safety funding to fight gang and immigration-related crime, but Pima County won’t get getting a dime of that money. In fact, the bill specifically prohibits Pima County from getting the money. Why? According to the East Valley Tribune today, Senate President Russell Pearce said it’s because Sheriff Dupnik wouldn’t enforce SB 1070:
“That was by design,” said Senate President Russell Pearce, R-Mesa.
“The sheriff says he’s not going to enforce the law,” Pearce said Wednesday night. “Why would I fund him?”
Talking about the bill and its potential impact today on the phone, Democratic Sen. Linda Lopez was outraged, calling the exclusion of the controversial sheriff and his department a “direct retaliation by Tea Party Republicans, purely vindictive to let people know that ‘if you say anything like that, we’ll teach you.'” For Lopez, this was an example of “legislation going through that shows the level of micromanagement (and) taking care of their own.”
Sheriff Dupnik, in a press release issued today, described himself as “extremely concerned with the specific and deliberate exclusion of Pima County, and only Pima County, from any funding,” but he decided to not comment further on the bill and its potential effect until “lawyers have had an opportunity to thoroughly scrutinize the proposed legislation.”
A message was left with Sen. Frank Antenori’s office (a co-sponsor of the bill), and I’ll update this post if/when he is available for comment.
For now, it’s hard to not think that the two counties receiving the funds are being rewarded for their loyalty to the conservative, anti-immigration party line, while Pima County is being punished for Dupnik’s outspokenness.
This article appears in Mar 17-23, 2011.
Actions have consequences. Makes sense to me. Why support that which isn’t supporting what one is mandated to do by Law. Like most emotions that affect actions, hard to reverse. Ask any child of a tough love parent. So be it.
http://recalldupnik.com
He needs to go.
So Puke, you’re ok with the State Lege denying the Citizens of Pima County police protection, because they don’t like Dupnik?
Denying police protection to Arizona citizens, that’s what you’re defending. What the hell is wrong with you?
What happen to our 1st amendment rights!? This is retribution for Dupnik’s outspoken opposition to the State Legislatures policies! Looks like Dupnik’s “bigotry” comments hit Pierce in the gut!
Puke, your comment epitomizes the idiocy of the current batch of republicans / tea partiers.
You aren’t my daddy. Everyone is entitled to their opinion without being punished. It’s called the 1st ammendment and used to be what America was all about.
The only ammendment / right you all care about is your interpretation of the 2nd so you can compensate for some lack by toting a gun everywhere.
State gun indeed. Paid for by the Colt Corporation.
And there are those that call Obama a “Socialist:, this is Communism! You can’t express your 1st amendment right for fear of retribution?!
What hypocrites, they claim the border is an issue yet take away funding to a Sheriff that shares the border with Mexico. Dupnik said he will not enforce SB1070 when it first had the verbiage in it that basically gave law enforcement the power to racially profile. He always said the law is not needed law enforcement already has the authority to arrest immigrants, but he feels this is the job of the USBP. Dupnik’s precise quote, “When my deputies encounter illegal immigrants they detain them, call US Border Patrol and let BP pick them up and let them house them.” He does not throw them in his jail and let the taxpayer of PC flip the bill. Geez! What a novel idea! Read his WSJ op-ed!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405…
Pearce’s language suggests he thinks it’s HIS money. I thought his ilk generally figured that money belongs to the taxpayer. Isn’t anyone going to call him out on that?
I guess he is working to solidify the Pima County vote behind the next Republican governor. Let’s see if Brewer has the guts to veto this unjust action.
The legislators pushing this, and our fellow poster Beyondpuke, are small-minded, petulant little children.
Ha! Ha! I know it all seems childish to you liberals in Pima County who support Sheriff Stupnik’s views. However, the Sheriff decided to get political when he opened his big mouth and got his 5 minutes of fame by denouncing and stating he wouldn’t enforce S.B. 1070. Therefore, he gave up Pima County’s rights to any monies to fight illegal immigration. If we won’t enforce S.B. 1070, then why should they let Pima have a share of the money? The solution is to fire Sheriff Dupnik and replace him with a Sheriff who will do the job we are paying him to do and support S.B. 1070 like Maricopa and Pinal Counties are doing.
Gosh, these Dupnik bashers are right. A sheriff shouldn’t take political stands. Sheriffs should be shrinking violets who are quiet and never comment on policy or politics, just like Arpaio and Babeu.
Interesting how the bulk of the money goes to Arpaio and Babeau. These 2 have politicized policing more than anyone I have ever seen. Of course its alright in their case because they are championing far right causes rather than common sense like Dupnik.
Let Sheriffs Joe and Babeu have the money. Then audit them.
Reminds me of the good old “AzScam” days in the legislature. At least back then this kind of business was conducted in hotel rooms and such. They used language like “excluding or including counties with populations under or over 500,000”. Now the corruption is just done in plain sight with plenty of lawyer and contractor work to boot.
Don’t know why you refer to these clowns as “tea party republicans”. Real tea party republicans would say that this is a waste of millions of dollars of tax money going to fund the PR machines of two individuals (who happen to be sheriffs) who have plans to keep running for elections. I say, no money for any of them!
We should not start hyperventilating just yet. Here is the language from the summary that says what the money will be used to do. “Monies deposited in the GIITEM Fund can be used for employer sanctions, smuggling, gang, and immigration enforcement.”
Sheriff Dupnik has already said…many times…that he has directed the sheriff’s department not to engage in much of what is covered by the legislation. Since he is not going to need any additional funds for the purposes the law sets out, there is no need to provide Pima County with the funds.
There were/are better ways for the legislature to accomplish the goals set out in the bill than by simply eliminating Pima County from consideration. The legislature could have considered offering the support to any county that agreed to enforce all Arizona laws…including those not liked by the County Sheriff.
Really he said he would not allow gang or smuggling enforcement? That’s ridiculous it is against the law for any public servant to be aware of a crime of their jurisdiction of enforcement and turn their back on it. Can you direct me to some quotes to back up your post Marty?
Perhaps you need some lessons in comprehending what you read. My post said that Dupnik has directed the sheriff’s department not to engage in “much of what is covered” by the legislation, and that is easily verifiable. He has specifically told his deputies not to enforce either state or federal immigration laws. Given that somewhat inconvenient fact, the state would be justified in saying, “We will provide you funds if you agree to enforce all laws…including the ones you don’t like.”
@ beyondpuke – “Like most emotions that affect actions, hard to reverse. Ask any child of a tough love parent.” Do you know Pearce has two grown sons that continue to break the law? Now that’s family values.
How clever. I love it. Thanks to Dupnik, Tucson came across on national TV as an undesireable place to live or retire to. We here on the east coast equate Tucson with Columbine and Waco, another nut place. Who wants to move there? My husband and I have made 2 trips to AZ recently to look at real estate. We’re government employees from the DC area retiring with pensions, health care benefits, a house that’s paid for, savings, the whole bag of tricks. We’ve been focusing our real estate search on Tucson and Pima County. Since Dupnik and the secession talk, we emailed our real estate agent and requested her to eliminate all Pima County real estate. We are now focusing on Cochise, Pinal, and Maricopa counties.
Sharon Lin, hopefully you don’t have brown skin when you retire in Cochise, Pinal or Maricopa county. Also, changing your retirement plan because of a sherrif’s comments is silly. If you want to live in a city of almost 1 million people, then you don’t let one man’s comments change your plan.
You know, it wouldn’t take much of a court case to defeat this. Not saying I agree with Dupnik, but the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution specifically prohibits this type of government action.
“he Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.”