This is a follow-up to my Wednesday post, Strange Political Bedfellows In The TUSD Board Election, about board member Mark Stegeman’s connection to Debe Campos-Fleenor’s campaign for a seat on the board, as well as his probable connection to Michael Hicks’ campaign. Stegeman is a Democrat. Campos-Fleenor and Hicks are Republicans.
Since I wrote that post, I visited the Pima County School Superintendent’s office and looked over the nominating petitions Campos-Fleenor and Hicks turned in. I confirmed that both campaigns used the same paid petition circulator: Patrick Wear from Sarasota, Florida. Campos-Fleenor lists a $1,200 expense for the circulator on her campaign finance report and also lists a $1,200 in-kind contribution from Stegeman for “Collection and Validation of Signatures.” Hicks’ campaign finance reports list no contributions or expenditures, which appears to be a direct violation of campaign finance law.
However, until I looked through the three inch stack of petitions for each candidate, I didn’t know that Stegeman collected signatures for both of them. I found five pages of signatures for Campos-Fleenor — 49 signatures — and two pages of signatures for Hicks — 14 signatures — with the back signed by Stegeman, indicating that he circulated the petitions. Based on the date following each person’s signature, it’s clear that Stegeman collected for Campos-Fleenor on a regular basis from June 20 to July 30, 2014. Stegeman got one signature for Hicks on June 20, but most of the signatures were collected between July 27 and August 3. Eleven of the fourteen signatures on Hicks’ petitions were also on Campos-Fleenor’s petitions, collected on the same date.
Also, Stegeman was one of the people who signed Campos-Fleenor’s nominating petition, on July 3.
Clearly, Stegeman has been actively supporting the campaigns of the two candidates since at least June 20. That’s his right, of course. But you would never know from the newsletters he emails to his constituents that he has favorites in the race. In his two most recent newsletters, sent August 25 and September 1, Stegeman writes like a dispassionate observer who wants to give his constituents unbiased, objective information they can use to form their own opinions about the candidates.
Here’s how he begins his August 25 newsletter:
Since joining the board, I have during each TUSD election cycle provided candidate information to my constituent list.
Later, before he gives information about the candidates, he writes:
I have tried hard to be fair and accurate in representing what a candidate “supports.”
A more honest way for Stegeman to be “fair and accurate” would be for him to state which candidates he’s supporting. If he had done that in the newsletters, his readers would be better able to decide how much of what he wrote was fair and accurate and what was designed to influence their votes. Based on my reading of the newsletters, most of the information he presented gave a positive spin to his two favored Republican candidates or gave modest praise to a few Democrats in an attempt to dilute the Democratic vote, which would allow his favored candidates to end up as the top two vote getters.
In a number of posts I’ve written over the years, I’ve been very critical of the positions Stegeman has taken as a TUSD board member. I don’t look forward to the prospect of his regaining his position as the leader of the board majority as he was before the 2012 election. I’ve also written about the manipulative tactics Stegeman uses to influence board policy and the way the public perceives TUSD. In July, 2013, I published a column in the Weekly discussing his tactics: Is Mark Stegeman using game theory to bend the TUSD board to his will? Stegeman is an economics professor at UA whose specialty is game theory. He’s written papers about how to manipulate others by first gaining their trust, then doling out carefully selected bits of information to lead them to conclusions the decision maker agrees with, without them knowing they’re being manipulated. That’s a tactic Stegeman uses on a regular basis as a board member, and he’s using it during this election cycle as well.
This article appears in Sep 4-10, 2014.
David Safier’s assessment of Stegeman is correct and consistent with my own interaction with him. Any candidate supported by Stegeman should be voted down!!!
If TUSD is to move in the direction of positive change, Grijalva and Hicks MUST be voted off the Board.
The fact that both Hicks and Campos-Fleenor hired an agency to collect signatures for their nominating petitions reflects a completed disregard for the Voters of TUSD in avoiding direct one-on-one contact so as to explain the nature of their Candidacy.
This matter of Stegeman’s involvement in with the campaigns of Hicks and Campos-Fleenor needs to be looked into by the Pima County Board of Elections so as to ensure that there are no violations of Election Law.
Vote for Jen Darland.
Francis, to clarify, many of the signatures for both campaigns were collected by volunteers, and by the candidates themselves. They were supplemented by the paid circulator. I didn’t do a count to figure out what percentage the paid circulator collected.
Unless there’s some activity by Stegeman I’m not aware of, I think his involvement in the campaigns is legal. The only part that strikes me as a violation of the law is that Hicks didn’t mention his expenses for the circulator on his financial report. But I think Stegeman is playing games — in a literal sense of the term, using his understanding of “game theory” — to manipulate voters. I believe knowledge is power. If people know who Stegeman supports, they can put his statements into context and make more informed decisions to agree or disagree with him.
Thanks David for this clarification! Notwithstanding, 400 signatures on a nominating petition is not excessive and should have been collected (all 400) by the Candidates themselves ( in my view ); and, in so doing they have direct interaction with the Voters of TUSD providing them with necessary information concerning their Candidacy.
Stegeman is another issue and it needs to be determined by the Pima County Board of Elections what use he and his Candidates have made of his understanding of “game theory” in this Election; once again reflecting his and his Candidates views of our Democracy and the necessity of an informed electorate.
Any Candidate that Stegeman supports should by avoided like the Plague!!!
Wow! Well if JT Ready can register as a Dem to run for Pinal Sheriff, I suppose Stegeman can call himself a Dem. I agree that with the comment that AG and MH need to be replaced. Although not related to this article, Regina Romero must be replaced as well. How is that investigation on her “missing” computer coming along? Have they searched her garage?
Mark Stegeman is trying to consolidate his power on the board in a way that hurts schoolchildren. Campos-Fleenor opposed funding for all-day kindergarten in TUSD, as well as the restoration of $33 million a year for TUSD schoolchildren cut by the state Legislature. In her mind, resource-starved classrooms and underpaid teachers are just fine. Look for the anti-public education big boys to fund her slick, photo-stock campaign being run by paid political operatives.
I won’t debate David’s interpretation of my record on the TUSD board (which somehow does not discuss any actual policy issues); but he has definitely misrepresented my academic research.
If we’re going to call for accountability, transparency, and honesty in our TUSD board election processes, I suggest we call for them across the board. We should call for them from all parties involved in the fray, not just from our political opponents. Otherwise it may seem as though what we really care about is the outcome, not the legitimacy of the process.
Having attended some of last school year’s board meetings and having viewed others online — and having met with or corresponded with all of the current board members on issues relating to getting students’ needs met — I will say that the current constitution and climate of the TUSD board is dysfunctional and counter-productive. The two parties have been fighting each other with the gloves off for so long and are so distracted by their internal conflicts that they have a hard time working together to meet compelling needs in the schools when these needs are brought to their attention.
Referring back to a comment on the original article, “Strange Political Bedfellows,” I will note that if Betts Putnam-Hidalgo is “unelectable,” as one commentator asserted, TUSD should probably be dissolved, as so many critics of the district assert. Putnam-Hidalgo is a well-informed, thoughtful, committed advocate for students, parents, social justice, and (the right kind of) “accountability.” She is exactly the sort of candidate the community would elect — if its decisions were made based on the candidates’ real competence, intelligence, depth of involvement in the schools, and knowledge of issues relating to their governance.
Although they are worlds apart when it comes to ideology and personality, it is Grijalva and Stegeman who have contributed the most to the toxic, unproductive atmosphere on the Board over the last several years. Both are obstinate and unreasonable, which are awful traits for anyone involved in public service. Both push personal agendas instead of advocating for the interests of schools, teachers and kids.
Safier is spot-on in his analysis of Stegeman’s behavior during this election and it is clear that he is trying to get back in the majority on the Board. Grijalva did the same thing in the last election in openly supporting Juarez and Foster, both of whom have voted with her most of the time, with Juarez being just as likely to vote with Grijalva as Hicks is to vote with Stegeman. The only difference in their behavior is that Stegeman is backing registered Republicans…but even Safier must have noticed how many prominent Republicans were endorsers for Stegeman or contributors to his campaign two years ago, so how is his current behavior that shocking?
TUSD voters can begin the restoration of accountability and integrity to the Board this year by dumping Grijalva and Stegeman’s puppet, Hicks. There have been too many TUSD Board members over the years who have made the district their political playground. Hicks and Grijalva MUST GO!
Mark, in your comment you refer to my interpretation of your record on the TUSD board and my interpretation of your research. But you don’t comment on the central assertion in my two posts on this topic, so let me ask you, am I correct in saying you are supporting the candidacies of Debe Campos-Fleenor and Michael Hicks?
David, I am very disappointed in your ad hominem attack on Mark Stegeman. If you don’t like his votes on the Board or the positions he has taken, i.e. upping the percentage of TUSD’s budget that goes into TUSD classrooms to no less than 55%, then say so. If you think support for the MAS classes that were found to violate state law by judges at the state and federal level, then say so. If you don’t think Democrats should look beyond their own party in deciding who to support, then say so.
You are simply creating a distraction so voters will ignore the fact that while Adelita Grijalva has been on the Governing Board more than 10,000 students have left TUSD for other districts and charter schools. You want voters to ignore the fact that Jen Darland will simply vote however Adelita Grijalva tells her to vote. (Think of that in terms of lost resources since every single one of those kids took the per student state funding with them when they left.) Several comments complain about the lack of resources in TUSD…which by itself is a lie. TUSD gets millions more dollars than any other local district because its per student allocation is so much greater than in any other local district.
As a TUSD teacher for the past seven years, I have come to respect and appreciate the educational views and leadership Adelita Grijalva has brought to the board. At the same time, I have found Mike Hicks and Mark Stegeman to be divisive figures who do not usually represent my views regarding how best to serve TUSD, our students, and our teachers. I appreciate David Safier’s insightful commentary here and will be voting for Grijalva and Darland, as will most of my colleagues.
We have seen the results of a Democrat majority on the TUSD board. Spending on administration out of kilter with classroom spending, lax oversight on procurement, a decades long growth of the integration suit cottage industry, nepotism and favoritism, loss of tens of thousands of students from the district, etc.
I’ve read Stegeman’s 50 point plan and support his candidacy. But why he supports Hicks is an issue he can explain, hopefully on the merits of Hicks’ positions and not as a political power play. I’ve also visited Campos‐Fleenor’s website and see her candidacy as a welcome counterpoint to Grijava’s record.
The current board is dysfunctional and both Grijalva and Hicks do need to be replaced. Stegeman, in Safier’s eyes, is guilty of straying from the Democrats, not of supporting bad policy. In my eyes, that’s no crime. That’s to be celebrated.
Marty, this may be a difference of how we define “ad hominem,” but I don’t think anything I wrote qualifies. I pointed out the tactics Stegeman uses as a board member and is using in the current campaign. That’s absolutely relevant to both the school board and the election. What I wrote has to do with politics and the wielding of power, not character assassination. Pointing out that he supports certain candidates is not a personal attack. Nor is pointing out that he hasn’t been forthright about supporting them.
Marty, if you are going to chide Grijalva for the exodus of students from TUSD during her tenure on the Board (which is a legitimate criticism), then make sure people know that Stegeman has been on the Board for two-thirds of Grijalva’s tenure. It stands to reason then, that he deserves almost as much of the blame that you are lobbing at Grijalva for the fact that parents are turning away from TUSD in droves. Both of them are known for pursuing political goals instead of doing what is best for all of TUSD, especially when both of them were guilty during the last superintendent’s tenure of standing in the way of innovation and creativity. No wonder that he left in frustration and dismay, which was caused mostly by the actions of this self-absorbed duo.
Isn’t it also the case that Stegeman has voted for most of the new central administrative jobs that have mushroomed during the Sanchez regime? Grijalva has voted for all of them, but that is not a shock since she was the loudest voice on the Board for making Sanchez the sole finalist for the superintendent job. Little wonder then that her mother-in-law was recommended to the Board to be a principal, a fact that he and Grijalva did not reveal to the rest of the Board until after the appointment was approved.
Grijalva and Stegeman may have different agendas to pursue, but they have joined together to make TUSD a factionalized, dysfunctional mess. They have served together for all of Stegeman’s tenure and most of Grijalva’s. The former has found a willing ally in Hicks and the latter has been able to count on total loyalty from Juarez. The only person on the Board who sometimes seems capable of independent thought is Foster.
If TUSD is to truly change and be a place where the interests of kids are paramount, then calculating politicians like Grijalva and Stegeman need to be weakened. The voters have a chance to advance that goal in November by dumping both Hicks and Grijalva. The arguments of partisans for candidates who will be nothing but stooges for Grijalva and Stegeman distract the public from the dire need for wholesale renewal in TUSD.
Stegeman can’t be a democrat he thinks for himself. No victimhood no race baiting just clear concise opinons/ You guys hate that don’t you?
The delivery of misleading, incomplete or inaccurate information is not something constituents should be asked to tolerate either in a school district’s educational administration or on its board. It shouldn’t be tolerated from Stegeman, and it shouldn’t be tolerated from anyone else serving the district. The pervasive attitude that “this is what can be expected of TUSD” and the practice of only calling your political opponents on bad behavior while turning a blind eye to mis-steps made by political allies will not help the district change its institutional culture for the better. What may help is an honest discussion in the press of the way the current board and administration function (or fail to function) and a uniform and consistent application of high standards to administration and to this round of board candidates. Safier does not yet seem to be delivering a uniform and consistent application of high standards to the entire field of candidates. Perhaps he has not yet had time to provide more comprehensive coverage and his performance will improve in the coming weeks.
The forthcoming election provides Tucson with a brief window of opportunity to deliver a message to all of the board members and candidates: the press and the public want the district to succeed. Because they want it to succeed, they will no longer tolerate the delivery of misleading or inaccurate information to constituents, nor will they tolerate a board that is so distracted by its infighting that it cannot find a way of collaborating to ensure that students’ needs are met, nor will they tolerate the pattern established during the last decade of constant turnover in the superintendency. Whatever the combination of personalities and behaviors causing this is, it is damaging to the district’s students and teachers and it needs to stop; whoever is seated on the board after the November elections, those five people will collectively be held accountable for finding an effective way of making it stop.
So it is OK if 2 Republicans support David Garcia (a Democrat) at the State level, but not OK if a Democrat supports 2 Republicans at the TUSD level.
You are definitely showing your true bias here. It seems to be party based.
http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2014/09/04/darland-supporter-foster-accost-fellow-tusd-board-member/#comment-168942
David, I am surprised that you didn’t also report that Grijalva and Foster are actively campaigning for Darling. Perhaps that doesn’t trouble you since they are on the
“right” side.
Doug, we can disagree, and that’s fine. Lots of people disagree with me in the comment section. But please read my post carefully enough that you represent my positions accurately.
You make it sound like I am “troubled” that Stegeman is supporting two Republican candidates and being hypocritical because I’m not “troubled” that Grijalva and Foster are supporting Jen Darland. Here are two relevant quotes from my post.
“Clearly, Stegeman has been actively supporting the campaigns of the two candidates since at least June 20. That’s his right, of course.”
See, no criticism of Stegeman supporting them. Then I discuss his newsletters where he doesn’t make his preference clear, after which I write,
“A more honest way for Stegeman to be “fair and accurate” would be for him to state which candidates he’s supporting. If he had done that in the newsletters, his readers would be better able to decide how much of what he wrote was fair and accurate and what was designed to influence their votes.”
Am I criticizing him for trying to influence people’s votes? Of course not. That’s what people do when they campaign for a candidate. I’m criticizing the fact that he’s not being open and honest about his support — as, by the way, Grijalva and Foster are about their support for Darland.
Ladies and Gentlemen: The essential question before the Voters of TUSD is whether or not they want to reconstitute the School Board and move the District in a positive Academic Direction.
It is without question, in my opinion, that Grijalva and Hicks (supported by Stegeman) must be voted off the Board as well as any candidate that they support, i.e. Grijalva’s Candidate Jen Darland; Stegeman’s other candidate, Debe Campos-Fleenor.
They focus in this election MUST be on the process of establishing a new majority on the Board. The present Membership of the Board is an unmitigated failure and has implemented, and continues to implement, Behavioral and Academic Policies that are destructive to TUSD as a System of Public Education for the Children of the District.
I thought the school boards were non partisan
If Safier had a deep belief in the need for “honesty” and “openness” in this campaign, in my humble opinion he would have used his platform in the Weekly to correct some conspicuously bad data circulated by one of the candidates he supports.
Bottom line: I don’t buy Safier’s self-presentation as someone who cares about “honesty” in political discourse. It bothers me that he continues to try to imply that what he is concerned about here is that Stegeman is not being “open” with voters.
Commentators can’t convince the public that they really value “honesty” and “openness” when they demand it of their enemies, but not of their friends. If what the game is about is die-hard, old school partisanship — digging up dirt on your opponents and ignoring the transgressions of your allies, it shouldn’t be pitched to the public as a higher and more disinterested form of commentary.
TUSD Needs New Leadership: Dr. Stegeman has indeed been on the Board for some time, but, unlike Ms. Grijalva, he has supported changes in the counter-productive, anti-student way TUSD does business.
We all know that TUSD spends a criminally small percentage of its revenues in the classroom…the only place it makes a difference for student learning. According to the most recent audited figures that percent was 49.2%, despite all the huge economies of scale enjoyed by TUSD. Dr. Stegeman proposed a policy change to work towards putting at least 55% of TUSD revenues into the classroom. Ms. Grijalva opposed this.
We all know that the Governing Board has virtually no clue how TUSD actually spends money because administration after administration have hid money…particularly the desegregation money that has been used as the administration’s slush fund. Stegeman has proposed hiring an internal auditor who would report directly to the Board. Ms. Grijalva has opposed this.
Working to get rid of all incumbents assumes they are all worthless, and that simply is not the case. There are significant differences between Ms. Grijalva…who supports the TUSD culture of insider dealing and puts the need for transparency and student learning way down her list of priorities… and Dr. Stegeman who has actually championed the needs of TUSD’s classrooms.
I am a solid democrat who voted for the three who are the Sanchez rubber-stamp (RS-3) majority right now- Grijalva, Foster and Juarez. As a recently retired TUSD principal I am very familiar with what has happened within our District during the last 12 years, and well beyond. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why the TUSD majority, under the leadership of Adelita Grijalva, insisted on going with a single, very inexperienced superintendent such as Sanchez. It is obvious that he was not vetted. Those from his former school district in Texas were thrilled that he left. Hiring him under a sham process violated the promise the Board made to include the community in the selection process. During the selection process Sanchez cornered the Board and told them he would drop out if he were not moved forward as the single candidate. They took the bait. The majority so-called progressives- bend to his ultimatum and he has been in total control since that point. This should have been the first sign of an ego with no control mechanisms. The ONLY decisions that are blessed by the RS-3 are those that Sanchez has already anointed and the religious analogy is not far from the truth. Sanchez believes that he is here for a “reason.” He rationalizes the pressure tactics he used to gain the superintend position by convincing himself and others that this was his “calling“. If any of the Board members question any of his recommendations, he becomes aggressive and challenges the Board. He is condescending and rude to Board members. The tale is definitely wagging the dog.
TUSD is in terrible shape right now. Communication may be plentiful but it is all about Sanchez, with NO direction and support going to the schools. We all know that Adelita is “electable” because her dad is running her campaign. It certainly is not based on her so-called accomplishments over her 12 years as a Board member. Her record is one empty of data proven outcomes and one that is filled with flawed processes (6 superintendents have served while she has been on the Board; that is an average of 2 years per supt.); between 15 to 20 schools have been closed all with mistake after mistake in the processes that were used; enrollment continues to decrease along with the trust of the community. Procurement processes involving less than $100,000 have been turned over to Sanchez so that he can bring his Texan experience and connections to Tucson. His apology was insincere because he knew he was being sneaky when he did it. Sure he was sorry for getting caught but that is all. Adelita’s web page states the following items as her accomplishments or “wanna-be” accomplishments; the facts or questions which should be asked follow.
On her campaign website, Adelita Grijalva claims, “We have faced difficult challenges yet we have moved decisively to..”Most of the listed items are in PROGRESS and not accomplishments. An incumbent should run on their record and not on what they “wanna” do or promise to do. None of the items listed provide any type of outcome data.
Increase the number of preschool opportunities If this is in reference to the day care centers that have been opened- there is no data to show that this will be of any value to the community or specifically to TUSD. Day care is not an area that public school systems are responsible for in Arizona; K-12 is. The fact that Sanchez has his son at one of the day cares and Adelita has her daughter at another should raise the question of why TUSD tax payers are subsidizing their children’s day care. Another question that should be raised is how the day cares were funded. Sanchez took out a loan. Whose signature is on that loan? Did the Board take action on that loan? (This goes to the question above on subsidizing the day care services.)
Another question is why TUSD would openly compete with the private sector in providing day care services and no one wants to hear that TUSD will do a better job than the private sector because no data is available to support that type of claim.
Decrease class size This area is very deceptive since Title I funding was reallocated to accomplish this. It is not clear that all classrooms/courses are at the 27:1 ratio or below and Adelita’s bragging rights should be reserved until the data is in!
Reduce TUSD’s carbon footprint. Where is the data?
Reopen previously closed TUSD schools By all means. Open closed schools such as Wakefield and admit that the process to close schools was greatly flawed and caused some tragic errors. Is this something to brag about?
Improve technology for students and employees Where is the data? Is this just another plan in process.
Establish a quality curriculum, including expansion of dual language program
Improve professional development training, including a “Grow Our Own” LeadershipThe fact that the 2014 Curriculum Audit found that TUSD is absent K-12 viable curriculum is the only reason needed not to re-elect Adelita. This should be cause to impeach any Board member who has served for more than one term. But someone who has served for 3 terms and is running for re-election must believe that no one knows about this. What this tells us, is that she never bothered to examine any level of curriculum or to learn about what the District should be doing in this area. She just winged it…and went along for the ride.
Academy to train new campus leaders I know individuals who went through the academy and are now principals. It has been described to me as a rights of passage; a sorority /fraternity environment. Those who made it through “rush” were appointed. It is merely a club; a Sanchez club.
Ensure that every campus library is open and available for students The librarians were cut during the last 12 years. Another mistake.
Ensure that arts and music will be available at every campus
Who in their right mind would argue with this? It is a good sound bite.
Adelita is now admitting that certain schools should not have been closed. These are decisions that one should not casually ride off as “oops.” She claims that she has not always been in the majority. Really? She was in the majority with Mary Belle McCorkle, Bruce Burke and Joel Ireland. She has been in the majority with her two fellow rubber-stampers since 2013. Hiring practices have worsened. Communication from central to the schools is intimidating. It is top down; with no respect for those closest to the children; principals and teachers. Central administration has bloated with the instant issuance of salary increases and bonuses. Those who “go-along” are rewarded. How many principals received bonuses? No teachers did; that is for sure. Adelita is in well- deserved trouble but her daddy has spoken to enough of the shakers and movers in the democratic party to rattle them into supporting her; again.
We are not Illinois, we are not New Jersey, yet I see the same political tactics being used here.
Democrats opting for Adelita, as a choice are selling out the children of TUSD. They are selling out the opportunity to vote for those who would understand that Board Members lead (instead of follow) the superintendent. I think that Betts Putman-Hilgado is an obvious choice but the Grijalva machine and Democratic party have decided there is room only for their “darling.”
Putman-Hilgado is committed to the future of Tucson’s youth; she is tremendously knowledgeable about the workings of TUSD; her strength has been gained from a grass roots effort and not a political machine that clones candidates out of cronyism rather than merit. I have not decided on who will get my second vote. It will go to a democrat that sets apart from a machine that was once for the good people but which has turned into a camp of cronyism and incompetence. I am not part of Putman-Hilgado’s campaign. I am a former teacher and principal with enough experience in the District and in the Democratic party to know what I am talking about.
With all due respect to David Safier- if you are going to “investigate” do so but do not be slanted in your approach. There are a few items listed above that would be of interest to TW readers.