It was just a matter of time. TUSD school board member Mark Stegeman, who had his Precinct Committeeman status with the Democratic Party taken away because he actively supported Republican candidates (it’s a violation of the bylaws) has declared himself an Independent. From his Facebook page:
I have changed my voter registration status to Independent. I appreciate all of my friends in the Democratic Party and have not changed my views on issues, but too much of the internal party discussion revolves around personalities and purely partisan issues instead of the policy choices that form the reason for the party.
Just to be clear, Stegeman could have kept his Democratic Party registration, but he could no longer serve as an elected officer—precinct committeeman is an elected position—of the Democratic Party. Becoming an Independent was purely his choice.
Stegeman contributed $1,200 to the TUSD school board campaign of Republican Debe Campos-Fleenor, and possibly an unspecified amount to Michael Hicks’ campaign, to pay for someone to circulate nominating petitions. When I looked over the petitions the two campaigns submitted, I found he collected signatures for both candidates as well.
This article appears in Sep 4-10, 2014.
Maybe Mr. Stegeman should be a good board member and visit the more than 20 schools that have new principals, and find out what’s going on in the district, rather than trying to pack the school board for his agenda.
How democratic is it that the Democratic Party penalizes Democrats who support non-Democrats in non-partisan races?
Marty, here’s what the bylaws say. You can be a registered Democrat and support whomever you please, but if you are in an elected position, like a precinct committee person, one of your obligations is to support only Democrats. When Mark resigned his position as committeeman, that’s all he had to do. It was his choice to go farther.
A republican in democrat sheep clothing exposed now he becomes a independent and thinks we cannot see him for what he was all along!
I never thought Mark was a Republican in sheep’s clothing. It is not unprecedented for people to be removed from their respective political party’s precinct committeeman position. Even though Mark gathered signatures for a non-partisan position, it still has consequences. It is a tempest in a tea pot that he was removed from this slot. Clarence Dupnik was once a long time ago censured by the Pima County Democratic Executive Committee for openly supporting a Republican candidate. That’s how it is done, folks. Everybody calm down. I am still very concerned about the ability of incumbent board members whose status is not in doubt to work with incoming board members if they didn’t support them. As a trait of effective boardsmanship, one should stay quiet during the election about the candidates. This is not silencing dissent or free expression. It is using your head and thinking ahead about future battles to be fought.
I don’t remember you guys whining when Kozachic jumped parties. He had to fool voters to get elected.
DOES ANYBODY CARE ABOUT THE KIDS?
Rat T: Whining? Who’s whining? Is anyone saying, “Woe is me, Mark is not a Democrat anymore!” It’s stating a fact that can help people understand where he’s coming from. Same thing when Kozachic changed parties. It was announced in the media. It was a clarifying moment. This is too.
And what the hell does that statement in all caps, “DOES ANYBODY CARE ABOUT THE KIDS?” mean? What does talking about Stegeman’s party affiliation have to do with anyone caring or not caring about the kids?
Mr. T, you should really try to make some sense now and then. I don’t mean you should agree with me. That’s not necessary. Just make some sense.
Here are some quotes from Stegeman’s resignation letter as precinct committeeman:
“Based on my grass roots organizing experience in Virginia, I have felt since moving to Pima County that the local Democratic Party has not effectively mastered those techniques. It was my intention, as I have shared with some, to use my new PC position to drive Democratic turnout in precinct 73 to the highest in the county and then to show the county party how to replicate that result. […] It may be worth noting, for the record, that I have given thousands ofdollars to national, statewide and local Democratic party candidates since coming to Arizona. I have made similar contributions to the county party organization.”
What an achievement for Safier and the Pima County Democratic party that they successfully “disciplined” Dr. Stegeman. It may not have been “necessary” for Mark to change his registration to independent, but who can blame him?
I do not by any means agree with all the positions Dr. Stegeman has taken during his time on the board — I am in fact vehemently opposed to some of them — but increased transparency and accountability are most definitely needed in the district, and Dr. Stegeman has in many ways been an advocate for improvements in these areas.
RE the internal auditor debate at yesterday evening’s board meeting: it is sad that there are people who think that because a fiscally sound practice “isn’t done in Arizona” it shouldn’t be done in TUSD, though it is recommended by those who understand how auditing practices should be structured for optimal validity. There are many things that are not done in Arizona that should be. To name a few: adequately funding public education, electing qualified and sufficiently educated representatives to the state legislature, providing sufficient support for social services (including mental health services), instituting reasonable policies regulating gun acquisition and ownership, properly overseeing the multiplying field of private contractors who use public funds to run prisons and “charter” schools that may or may not deliver humane services to their “clients,” and the list could go on.
Recently I attended a function with a couple who had moved here from one of the states on the east coast that has an excellent public education system. They are both liberal, highly educated, public servants in the government and non-profit sector, and when the subject of TUSD came up, we discussed their experiences. They had tried to keep their students enrolled in TUSD out of their commitment to the public school system. After a series of bad experiences and deep investments in advocacy at one of the magnet schools, they gave up and became private school parents for the rest of their children’s journey. It happens over and over and over again in this district with even the most devoted public school aficionados. As Hirschman noted in the still relevant “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” the constituents who care the most about education and have the greatest potential as advocates for high standards are the first to leave public school systems in decline when higher quality options are available in the private sector.
What sentiment does the way TUSD is currently being managed inspire in those of us who’ve seen responsible, well-managed public education systems elsewhere in the country? In one word: disgust.
Dr. Stegeman reads this blog and frequently posts on it. Why doesn’t he just answer the question? Dr. Stegeman, did you make financial contributions to Mr. Hicks’ campaign, and if so, how much?
Sure. I registered the same $1,200 in-kind contribution with Hicks’s campaign that I registered with Campos-Fleenor’s campaign. That represented partly money I spent and partly my own time (but that is in-kind, not billed to the campaigns). I think Hicks’s failure to report it was inadvertent or possibly misunderstanding the reporting of in-kind contributions, and I assume he or his treasurer will correct it if they have not already. I have not made any cash contribution, or any other in-kind contribution, to Hicks’s campaign. (Thanks for asking; this is the first time that anyone actually asked me about it.)
David, Your reply still begs the question, “What the heck does party affiliation have to do with what individuals choose do in a non-partisan election?” If the party name does not actually appear on the ballot next to the name of a candidate then the Democratic Party…or any other party…has no basis for injecting themselves into individual actions related solely to these elections. It is simply not their business, and Dr. Stegeman should not have been asked to resign his position.
Good Discussion Should the Pima County Democrat Executive Board or a Precinct Committee person make recommendations or endorse candidates in the Primary? Should they act as guardians of the party and pick and choose between Democrat candidates? That is the question Dr. Stegeman asked the Pima County Democrat Executive Board a few years ago. The Board did make a choice between Democrat candidates, I think for good reason, the Board found several Democrats in disagreement on that action. Since the Precinct person is elected under State Law does the Democrat Committee have the authority to set up in their By-Laws rules to exercise any control over that publicly elected official? {Precinct Committeeman) Do we judge people running in a “non-partisan” race by their chosen party label or by other factors and considerations?
What would drive a life long democrat and supporter of the party to become independent? I give him a lot of credit for standing up for his convictions and putting TUSD and the kids ahead of an agenda.
Obama is driving the honest democrats out. They can not support his flawed anti American thinking.
Dear FedUp–some of us respond, despite our disgust with some aspects of it, with commitment to change TUSD from the inside, knowing that, with its flaws, its still a good education in academics, an important education in diversity, and a cause worth supporting. We don’t ALL vote with our feet!
Re: the audit issue in TUSD. What an embarrassment to sit there listening (in hour 41/2 of a 5 hour meeting) to adults snipe at each other,have mini temper tantrums in public and growl over a policy that, as you say, is standard operating procedure in other parts of the country (as well as called for in multiple audits of TUSD.) It would not be surprising if there are those who think that the administration has something to hide for the fierce opposition such an idea seems to cause. Something else that doesn’t happen in Arizona, or more accurately in TUSD? Passing tax overrides to actually try to fund our suffering public schools. An independent audit might well help build district credibility…
Meanwhile, our blogosphere, appreciated as it is by this reader, is full of one person’s political peccadilloes instead of asking what the h#ll is the problem with an internal independent auditor for a district that struggles constantly with financial credibility…
Well might some people respond Does anyone care about the kids?!
Pima Mujer: I usually visit one school per week and spend 3+ hours there. I think that is more than most board members do.
Huh. All along I’ve been under the impression that Mark Stegeman belonged to the Mark Stegeman Party.
I would love to see the talents and energy of Mr. Stegeman and the TUSD board members to be channeled more directly into the serious and complex business of building a world-class school district. There seem to be a lot of good intentions to build upon, but I wish that people would resist the temptation to keep kicking up political dust and engaging in ‘us vs. them’ conversations. I have yet to see where the current political sideshow has resulted in any positive, sustainable improvement for kids, teachers, or taxpayers.
Stegeman is a college professor. Juarez works for Pima County, as does Grijalva. Foster is an SUSD teacher. Hicks works for the city. Currently, there are no unemployed board members with all day free to visit schools. Stegeman has perhaps the most available time, and to his credit, he does visit schools during the school day. The others have a tough time doing that without consequences in their financial security. All of them make efforts to visit school events and district events after working hours. They receive no pay and lots of grief no matter what they do. Juarez, Grijalva, and Hicks have children in the system and family lives to consider as well.
When the public beats up on any school board members, they should remember this is an unpaid, essentially volunteer position, done with the best interests of kids as they see it at heart, at least when they begin service. Nobody gets rich, and I know of only three board members in living history who went on to other elected service. Brenda Even at PCC, Raul Grijalva and Katie Dusenberry to the County Board of Supervisors. Eva Bacal tried but did not succeed. If this is a stepping stone, it sure doesn’t work very well. If all the naysayers would put half the energy into helping at their closest individual school at any level, the district would be a lot better!
Betts Putman-Hildalgo: If you really cared “about the kids”…a shibboleth that you constantly use without any specific details as to HOW you would help the kids, you would unhesitatingly ask for the removal, by the Voters of TUSD, of the two incumbents, Grijalva and Hicks along with an Administrative reorganization.
If, as your state, TUSD”….. its still a good education in academics….”, why has the District been loosing, for that past 10 years. approximately 1500 Students? There are a few Academically good Schools in TUSD as indicated by the AIMS Scores….but…generally, the District is an Academic mess!!
ARS 15-841 and ARS 15-821 needs to be implemented so as to begin the process of making TUSD a positive Academic experience for ALL Students in the District.
I want to thank Dr. Stegeman for his leadership and thank him for guidance as who to vote for. This should be nonpartisan.
Betts — As Hirschman points out, “exit” and “voice” can work together to exert pressure on an organization to change its ways. Effective instances of the use of “voice” (such as yours) need to be supported, and accurate data on the volume of “exit” (and type of constituents exiting) should also be provided. When people deeply committed to the cause of public education invest a lot in trying to help the institution and then leave, that says something about the responsiveness and functionality of administration / bureaucracy in the district. We need to have an accurate understanding of what is going on if we are to make the right decisions about how to improve.
In my view, the board needs to encourage continuity in the superintendency and retain Dr. Sanchez, but it also needs to get behind policies that ensure improvements to transparency and accountability. If it does not, the district will continue to hemorrhage parents like those I mentioned in my earlier post who are strong supporters of public schooling. These parents want TUSD schools to be high functioning and they could, through their involvement and advocacy, be strong positive contributors to that goal, if the district could become responsive and responsible enough to start retaining them.
RE: the internal auditor policy and the quality of discussion that took place on that topic at last night’s board meeting– we are agreed on both of those points.
The upcoming board election is of critical importance. As many well-informed and thoughtful commentators on Safier’s recent posts have noted, the composition and climate of the board needs to change. I hope we will maintain continuity in the superintendency, but I also sincerely hope that we will elect board members who can be collaborative when that is what is needed, at the same time that they can be effective in opposing wrong-headed policies when these are introduced.
Factionalism, cronyism, patronage, incivility, “rubber stamping,” and personality-based decision making should stop, for the good of our children. Positive change in the institutional culture and effective leadership need to start at the top, i.e. at the board level. I don’t agree with you (or with any other board member or candidate) on every issue, but I support your candidacy because you seem to have the intelligence, experience, and consensus-building skills needed to help improve the way the board functions.
You came to my school once, Mr. Stegeman, in the six years, since you were elected in 2008. Mr. Juarez came twice, since being elected two years ago..
Mark, thanks for joining this comments thread. I’d like to get some clarification about the comment you made concerning your contributions to the Campos-Fleenor and Hicks campaigns.
As I understand it, you spent $1,200 of your own money as an in-kind contribution to the Campos-Fleenor campaign to pay for a petition signer. That’s what it says on her campaign document. But you say it was “partly money I spent and partly my own time.” Does that mean you considered your time collecting signatures for her campaign an in-kind contribution? I’ve always considered that to be volunteering for a campaign, not something which was given a monetary value and reported. Can you clarify how much of the $1,200 was actual money and how much was for your time?
Then you say you gave “the same $1,200 in-kind contribution with Hicks’s campaign.” Again, was that funds, time or a combination of the two?
Safier: The in-kinds were a combination, but from a legal viewpoint it doesn’t matter. The point is that they count against the total contributions allowed by one person. Higher in-kind contributions reduce the allowable cash contributions by the same amount.
Mr. Safier: Dr. Mark Stegeman is NOT the issue in this campaign unless he has information that he must share with the Voters of TUSD; that can effect the possible outcome of the election!!! The Pima County Board of Elections will determine if Dr. Stegeman is in violation of Election Law.
We need to focus on this upcoming election, the replacement of the two incumbents, and with that, a reorganization of Central Administration/Policies so as to move TUSD in a positive Academic direction.
I am going to say this as often as I can. TUSD needs to be split up. Organizations tend to try to grow even when their growth have caused ineffectiveness and inefficiencies. It can be a good thing to downsize. I have always been a staunch supporter of public education. Right now I have a student in a charter school. TUSD is a sinking ship.
So many intelligent and passionate comments on this board. The tempest in a teapot brewed by Safier is the least important and the least commented on. Whether Dr. Stegeman is a Democrat true believer is irrelevant, what is relevant are the positions he holds on the important issues confronting TUSD.
Welcome to the ranks of the Independents, Mark. You are not alone in the largest block of registered voters. Glad you represent me.
Fed Up-You and many others may be surprised to find that I agree that if at all possible AND WORKABLE we should be trying to retain superintendents. I have been at school sites when we are changing superintendents, and it is a nightmare. While there are some people truly grounded in school sites that disagree with me about this re this superintendent, I remain firm. My experience is that purchasing, planning, H.R. and everything else goes absolutely on hold while the Board is looking for a new superintendent and its hard to believe that its worth it. This is a particular nightmare if the superintendent has been centralizing leadership, obviously. Talk about damaging to the kids! But I do think that a superintendent needs to be willing to work with an independent auditor who answers to the Board, and willing to deal with a proactive and constructive Board in a respectful and constructive way. I think that Board questions and suggestions should be met with an open mind, especially since, (as HT himself pointed out at a Board workshop held as a Special Board meeting 2 weeks ago) the Board is the Boss, and they are supposed to make policy. I was shocked to hear during this latest meeting the implication that calling for an independent auditor might push this superintendent out-fear tactics? Reality? Lack of understanding what was said on my part? All possible. But I didn’t call for the expulsion of Pedicone, despite the very deep disagreements I had with him over MAS–I said then and I’ll say it again–I think when people blithely call for a switch in superintendents, they are not aware of how profoundly that disturbs and sets back the schools. And that level of chaos cannot help but affect our kids.
To Francis Saitta and Betts Putnam Hidalgo: I know and appreciate that you are both candidates running in this election, but it would be more transparent if you said you were a candidate at least once in each thread where you are commenting. People need to know you are not a completely disinterested party when they read your comments. I don’t know how anyone else feels about this, but I respect candidates who go the extra mile to be transparent.
Dr. Stegeman, isn’t financially supporting another sitting member on the board, and someone who could potentially be sitting on the board, a serious conflict of interest? Were there any discussions with the candidates you have chosen to support financially before you donated to their campaigns and what kind of support you would receive in return? Aren’t you basically attempting to purchase votes from your fellow board members?
For someone who has been so concerned about addressing conflicts of interest and disclosing them to the public, this seems hypocritical. You never made a single mention of it in your constituent newsletter (something your constituents might want to know in case they want to choose to no longer be your constituents). If Safier hadn’t written anything about it this probably would have never become public information. That’s pretty suspect.
All of the comments in this thread point to the reasons why both incumbent Board members need to be voted out in the coming election. Most other Pima County school boards operate in a functional and harmonious way because they are not populated by agenda-driven politicians who push their own political interests. The Grijlava camp on the TUSD Board wars with the Stegeman camp constantly. Neither one of these “leaders” are consensus-builders who can rally the community together because they continually demonize those who don’t agree with them. Stegeman is just more open and transparent about his efforts to influence the electorate in this campaign. He has been aided by Bruce Ash, the Republican national committeeman, who uses his radio spots to bash Grijalva and her allies. Grijalva is more subtle and under the radar in her machinations, but active Democrats are well aware of how her supporters are trying to determine the outcome of this election, even to the point of discrediting fellow Democrats who are on the ballot.
As for Sanchez, he reaps the benefits from all this bickering on the Board as he and his colleagues operate with impunity and no accountability. Previous commenters have already noted the large number of administrators and teachers who have fled TUSD during the less than two years that Sanchez has been in charge. He is intolerant of discussion or dissent and quickly moves to punish or silence anyone who questions his rule, often using his high-spirited and vengeful deputy superintendent to be his enforcer. If people in this community were appalled with how Isquierdo ran things in SUSD, wait until the way Sanchez operates is made more public.
What is needed on the Board is a commitment to hold Sanchez accountable for his excesses and to support him in his efforts to put a long-term strategic plan in place for TUSD. Both of the incumbents in this election, Hicks and Grijalva, lack the credibility and ability to play these dual roles given their track records up to now. TUSD voters need to elect independent and selfless Board members who will avoid the temptation to add to the factionalized nature of most recent TUSD Boards.
Sorry David. You can’t seem to check your biases at the door. TUSD has become a political punching bag and they have beaten all the money out of the taxpayers. Like it or not.
P.S. I’m not running for any office. I would prefer TUSD close.
Marty: Before making such comments, you should have checked my Profile posted on this site.
We can plainly see that politics has been the destructive force in the collapse of TUSD. Everybody wants their own party fifedom. Is it for indoctrination and money/power control.
Sure looks like it here.
I don’t care if it makes no sense to one, but what have you done for the children?
I believe the new superintendent, Dr. H.T. Sanchez, has brought some extremely beneficial things to the district, most notably the strategic planning process and the reduction in student teacher ratios. However, from what I have seen, commentators are on the mark when they observe that the current board majority supports everything Dr. Sanchez proposes – even when these proposals should probably be modified for the benefit of the district – and opposes almost any idea the board minority proposes, no matter how reasonable the proposal might be. This is not an appropriate mode of operation for a school district’s governing board.
I do not support all of the board minority’s ideas, but members of the minority have introduced and continue to try to introduce beneficial reforms that would require the district’s administrators to be more accountable and that could help make the district’s operations more transparent to constituents. When they advance these sorts of proposals, it is hard indeed to understand why they should encounter such firm and consistent opposition. A properly functioning board will support the Superintendent but will also put proper limits on his power, which should not be absolute.
Viewing how the current board operates is easy to do. Videos of board meetings are archived and can be accessed through this web page:
http://www.tusd1.org/contents/govboard/gbvideo_archive.html
Discussion of the internal auditor and to whom the auditor should report can be viewed at approximately hour 4 and ½ of the board meeting that took place on September 9. Both the September 9, 2014 and the November 12, 2013 meetings are interesting as illustrations of current board dynamics.
There will be another public form for the board candidates on September 29 from 6:30 to 8:30 in the auditorium of Palo Verde High School.
I suggest that people interested in the upcoming election watch some board meetings online and attend the upcoming forum.
John Dewey: I appreciate your point, but the constituent letter goes to many government email addresses, and I can’t make a political endorsement (and that disclosure could easily be interpreted as an endorsement) in that forum. One could argue that I should therefore say nothing at all about the candidates, in those letters, but I have provided candidate information in previous elections and people seemed to appreciate it and no one complained. I did try to be accurate in my comments this time and quotations and stand by what I wrote. However your concern is understandable and I discussed exactly that issue with several people before sending the letter. As for conflicts of interest, it is common (for example) for legislative candidates to give much help of various kinds to other legislative candidates from their own party, and no one seems to interpret that as a conflict of interest.
For all you people slinging arrows at Dr. Stegeman get a clue. I don’t care what party he is with or if he’s an independent. What I care about is that he’s doing a good job and he is not afraid to take a stand for what is right. Meanwhile Grijlava and her cronies continue to use their majority to push forward an agenda that has put TUSD in the poor position it is. Instead of trying to vilify Dr. Stegeman what you should be asking Grijlava is why the majority of the kids who graduate from the school district can’t get into the University of Arizona. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees!
Francis Saitta: Please get real. You are the candidate. It is neither my responsibility nor my habit to examine the profiles of people who comment on this blog. Being transparent about your own candidacy…especially when you are attacking other candidates… is no one’s job but yours.
Marty: It is your responsibility to be informed before sticking your foot in your mouth!!!
Mr. Safier: Your assessment of Dr. Mark Stegeman is , generally, correct in my opinion. However, Dr. Stegeman is not up for re-election to the TUSD Board; Adelita Grijalva and Michael Hicks are up for re-election. You do not support the election of the Candidates supported by Dr. Stegeman, including Michael Hick and Debe Campos-Fleenor….I agree as well.
However, your silence on the re-election of Adelita Grijalva is deafening!! Do you support her re-election and her endorsed candidate, Jenifer Darland?
Grijalvas’ and Hicks’ tenure on the Board has been an unmitigated disaster in developing a positive/successful Academic program for TUSD.
Check the Statistics during their tenure in Office: AIMS Assessment Scores, Decline in Enrollment; and, with that, astoundingly, an over 100% increase in Central Administration Staff diverting monies to support a BLOATED Administration and away from the Classroom/Laboratory Infrastructure.
Grijalva and Hicks, BOTH, need to be voted off the TUSD Board! Do you agree???.
No doubt America has the Best Democracy Corporate Lawyers can buy. It really doesn’t matter lately who wins the election – there is not much difference between the two .. There wil be no change unless Americans start voting for Independent candidates. Minzing words about Grammar is the dumbest and time wasting issue I have ever seen…