Doug Ducey loves to say Prop 123 is a “first step.” That phrase has become a mantra for Ducey and others supporting Prop 123. The question Ducey won’t answer is, if Prop 123 is the first step, what’s the next step?

“First step” is one of those vague, Rorschach-test statements politicians love which allow voters to deduce the meaning based on their own desires. If you’re a pro-education-funding voter, you’re supposed to imagine it means the next step is to put more money in public education. If you think our “government schools” are wasting money on administration and we’re “throwing money” at “failing schools,” then you can imagine the next step has nothing to do with increasing funding. It’s about firing administrators, defunding “government schools,” especially those with lots of poor and minority kids, and increasing funds for “school choice” — meaning plenty of money for charter and private schools.

Ducey agrees with the second group. Prop 123 is a way of getting the public off his back without putting any new money for education in the state budget. He and his surrogates have made it clear, they want to keep education funding low while shifting money toward high rent school districts, charters and private schools. But he can’t say that out loud right now. Prop 123 needs the votes of people who know our schools are desperately in need of more funding and want the state to increase what it spends on education. His oft-used “first step” statement is designed to leave the impression he’s on their side without making a commitment he might be expected to live up to later.

Ducey can show he agrees our schools need more funding by adding education spending to the budget he and Republican legislative leadership are hammering out. Instead, it looks like they’re going to push for a net loss of $21 million in state education money. That means if Prop 123 passes, the first $21 million dollars will go toward bringing state funding up to this year’s abysmally low level, not to adding money for schools. If it fails, our schools will be $21 million poorer.

And yet, I’m voting for Prop 123. It’s getting harder by the day, but my vote stands, as do my reasons, which I’ve explained in earlier posts so I won’t go into them again.

But does a Yes vote mean I trust Ducey? Hell No! Let me qualify that Hell No! The only thing I trust about Ducey is that he will continue to be a lying weasel who will do whatever it takes to push through his anti-people, pro-tax-cuts-for-the-rich agenda. My Yes vote is a statement that Prop 123 is a weak first step toward raising Arizona’s lowest-in-the-nation per-student funding (or second or third lowest, depending on who’s counting) to a higher level, but it’s not nearly enough. We need to insist the legislature does more. Much more. Hundreds of millions of dollars more. And we need to do everything we can to throw out the bastards who get in the way of doing what’s best for our children by working to defund and dismantle our public education system.

BONUS “First-Step”-In-The-Voter-Guide FEATURE: 
In an article about Prop 123 in the Republic, Democratic House Minority Leader Eric Meyer calls Ducey on his “first step” phrase. According to Meyer, Ducey can show his support for education by completing his statement about Prop 123 by saying, “Yes, this is a first step, and the second step is investing $100 million in the budget we’re going to pass.”

In the Arguments “For” Proposition 123 in the Voter Guide, the phrase “first step” is used 13 times, but no one comes near saying, as Meyer did, that Prop 123 should be part of a larger financial investment in education. And, to the Arizona Education Association’s great shame, that reluctance to demand more funding is echoed in its wishy-washy statements.

Here are all 13 “first step” quotes.

• Lisa Graham Keegan and Jaime A. Molera: “an excellent first step towards rebuilding the base funding of Arizona’s K-12 system” (Keegan and Molera are ex-Ed Supes who are working to funnel funds to high rent districts, charters and private schools.)
• Vic Linoff and Mary Ann Miller: “a first step in funding classrooms to help Arizona’s teachers and students succeed in the classroom and in the future” (Sponsored by the East Valley Chambers of Commerce Alliance)
• John-David Bowman, Beth Maloney, Nancie Lindblom, and Kristie Martorell: “an important first step on the way to improving education funding in Arizona” (Sponsored by the Arizona Education Association)
• Paul Lowes and Tom Oviatt: “a first step in a larger education funding conversation at the state level” (Sponsored by the Arizona Education Association)
• Andrew F. Morrill and Joe Thomas: “the first step to provide stability to our public schools”; “the first step towards honoring our extraordinary teachers, nurses, bus drivers, and so many others working every day so our children’s future is brighter that their commitment is appreciated”; and “the first step toward a brighter future for all of Arizona” (Sponsored by the Arizona Education Association)
• Jeff Dial: “the first step toward reforming education in Arizona” (A Republican state senator, Dial also uses the “education reform” phrase associated with the privatization movement)
• Robert Calbert: “the first step toward the education improvements we need for Arizona” (Sponsored by Greater Phoenix Leadership)
• Mark R. Young: “hugely important and courageous first step toward restoring the commitment we voters approved in the past” (Sponsored by Greater Phoenix Leadership)
• Larry S. Lazarus: “a critical first step toward resolving our education system’s funding problems” (Sponsored by Greater Phoenix Leadership)
• Jill Humpherys: “a good first step toward solving issues of funding, performance, and accountability” (Humpherys is on the Gilbert School Board)
• Farrell Quinlan and Mark Giebelhaus: “a good first step toward solving issues of funding, performance, and accountability” (Sponsored by National Federation of Independent Business/Arizona and advocating for Stand for Children Arizona)

This article appears in Apr 21-27, 2016.

17 replies on “Translating Prop 123 Ducey-Speak: “It’s a First Step””

  1. “if Prop 123 is the first step, what’s the next step?”

    Best guess: since, if Prop 123 passes, the education budget will not be allowed to exceed 49% of the total budget, the next step will be to cut funding to the “everything else” so a lower dollar amount for education will then qualify as 49%.

    How stupid does Ducey think we are? Is he relying on the supposition that with Arizona’s “government schools” as poorly funded and overseen as they are, there won’t be enough voters who received sufficient math education to understand that you can make the education budget hit the 49% trigger, not by increasing the budget to education, which Ducey & co. would never do, but by cutting funding to non-education government services, which they will most certainly do?

    Wake up, Arizona. Vote “NO!” on Prop 123.

  2. Barack Obama was not attacked as often as the Governor is. No matter who wins elections the other half is miserable.

    Why not focus positive energy on something you can change and drop all the negativity? It’s not healthy.

  3. Fortunately, in a democracy you CAN change poor leadership.

    Keep up the good work, David Safier, educating the public about Ducey’s Magic ponies and empty promises to add unspecified “next steps” after 123 — which, given what we’ve seen so far, will probably be steps that will take us further down into the abyss of ignorance and poverty this “leader” is carving out for our state.

  4. My hope is that by the time we can figure out just how much TUSD is actually getting, all of the students will have been removed and placed in better schools.

  5. I am so saddened that good public education proponents have SOMEHOW been convinced to support this outrageous sham. The triggers tell the story…they are being put into our constitution so there is cover when the Gov and republican legislators stop the inflation funding.
    Wrong on so many levels. Please vote No on Prop 123.

  6. One step forward (the lawsuit), two steps back (the “settlement” that is Prop 123). I wish all your hopeful thinking was correct, but I think it’s just being naive. How can supporters of public education expect anything more from the state government when they are giving up the only real leverage they have? A better deal is possible, but this needs to be voted down and brought back to the courts.

  7. I think “first step” could be considered Orwellian double speak. Rather than a first step towards restoring funding for Arizona’s public schools, I see it as a continuation of the many previous steps towards the ending of public education in Arizona.
    There is a right way and a wrong way to fund public education in a manner that is both effective and sustainable. Doing things the wrong way is most always counterproductive. Prop 123 is the wrong way.

  9. David Safier: Please rethink your decision to vote for proposition 123. You’re falling for the “it’s the best we can do” line, and that’s part of what’s gotten us here in the first place. I read your columns; you should know better.

    This prop is like eating your seed corn. You get a few meals today, but next year you will have nothing to plant. By amending the AZ constitution, Ducey and his heartless gang of Republicans are undercutting the fiscal stability of education in this state for years (generations?) to come.

    It’s a scam. Don’t fall for it. NO on prop 123.

  10. Blaze Mason: it’s usually more effective to work from the “cause” end of things, rather than from the “effect” end.

    Thus, if you’d like to get David Safier to rethink his position on Prop 123, perhaps you should work on changing the position of TUSD’s Sanchez-Grijalva-Foster-Juarez and their “don’t-stand-up-for-principles-but-take-the-money-on-any-terms-it-is-offered” allies in TEA and AEA and in other public districts. In the vast majority of cases, Safier will follow TUSD governance / admin and union leadership’s policy positions, even when it makes him queasy to do so.

    A large part of our problem in Southern Arizona is that we currently have people running our largest local school district and our teachers union who either don’t understand the principles that should be guiding responsible public education systems, or, when push comes to shove in their dialogues with state-level leadership, they capitulate and collaborate — with refusing to demand full settlement of the Cave Creek law suit with money coming for the correct sources, with agreeing that it’s appropriate to phase down TUSD deseg funds after Unitary Status is achieved in the district, with suggesting that we should solve our teacher shortage problems by reducing teacher credentialing requirements, etc., etc., ad nauseam.

    It’s a little difficult for constituents in Southern Arizona to get pressure applied in the right places, backing the right agenda, when the major collective agents who should be using their bargaining power to get the right things done sell out to the enemy.

  11. I agree with you 100% David, great analysis!! Those in opposition are planting their flag and refusing to take what we can get now. Those voting yes recognize that we can still take the money and THEN kick the public education haters out of office!

  12. Douchey. Arizona’s latest douchebag politician.

    Please vote no on this scam. Dramatically eroding the state trust does not aid education funding in the long term, despite any short term gains that might be perceived or even realized. In the long term, it simply makes education funding even more tenuous and vulnerable than it is now.

    Vote no on Douchey’s evasive scam.

  13. Dismal that educators are falling for this scam. We give up the goose that lays the golden eggs, give TUSD and Pima County $1 million “to buy depreciating assets” that will be forgotten about by the time people realize we’ve been had. Land gone, trust money gone for a few months of instant gratification. Meanwhile land sold to developers who build more homes to suck up the water reserves, and badly depleted public services, our water bills (and consequently sewer bills) go up again, our public schools continue to crumble while ALEC pitches privatized schools who are already stealing money at twice the rate we get for public education. They already hit us with a hefty “fairness tax” saying TUSD residents live in such a posh district they need to pay more taxes than say Catalina Foothills, and there isn’t a peep out of anyone about discriminatory taxing. Legislators, when your staffers tell you to vote for a bill like this, hire new staffers who can read and think. It’s frightening to think it can become a constitutional amendment that will be next to impossible to remove. Remember when they said if we would just pass a lottery bill we would never have to pay school taxes again? How’s that working out for you?

  14. I still do not understand how the revenue from the SALE of state trust lands is sustainable – like forever. Who is going to buy what land? (Chinese speculators? Canadian mining corporations? Loggers? Cartels?) Why would they buy? Where would they buy? I can understand why starving schools are in, but this special election “solution” hype feels like a dry well out in the badlands. Can anyone define details? Does anyone understand possible consequences?

  15. It’s obvious that ” Duchey” is up to his old schemes. He did it to folks that trusted him before he entered his politicall career… Leaving people that believed him behind in the dust. He can not be trusted. But I bet you one in a million that voters in Arizona go for his latest scam, and then cry wolf when things are totally down the crapper. Sadly, Arizona’s voters don
    t seem to shine the brightest light when it comes to voting.

  16. When the local Superintendent of a very very poor district teams up with Lisa Graham Keegan to discuss how to increase teacher recruitment , you’ve got a problem. When that same Superintendent promises to pay teachers more than the $500 increase that they received to make up for the longevity stipends that they (unwittingly) lost in the process, when that same Superintendent’s “necessary” incentive to stay is a YUGE salary increase, you’ve got a problem. My heart goes out to teachers who are tired of being talked down to and bad about, but I am going to keep working for a deal that actually benefits them with money, not empty promises. And David, I would have thought that you would too. Guess you don’t have grandkids in Arizona (who you might want to see have access to public education too) …..

Comments are closed.