A4
SATURDAY FEBRUARY 14, 2015
GOVERNMENT CONTACT STATE REP. DAVID STEVENS, DISTRICT 14 • MAIL: Arizona House of Representatives, Capitol Complex, Room 116, 1700 W. Washington, Phoenix AZ 85007-2890 • TELEPHONE: (602) 926-4321 • FAX: (602) 417-3146 • EMAIL: dstevens@azleg.gov
OUR VIEW
The cost of carrying money
Opinion
Opinion Editor: Eric Petermann, 515-4610, eric.petermann@svherald.com
I
t wasn’t hard to come away from the State of the District breakfast Friday morning feeling good about Sierra Vista schools. From almost every measure the district’s financial health is strong and student academic performance is trending upward. What’s not to like? The district has no outstanding bonds or significant indebtedness and in 2013–’14 its schools earned the highest grades ever achieved from the state. The challenging part of this picture that school officials were not shy in presenting at the breakfast on Friday morning centers on issues outside the classroom. Chief Financial Officer Cheryl Guldenschuh reported the average age of district school buildings is 25 to 35 years old. Curriculum Director Terri Romo said more technology is needed, especially at the high school, to help students and teachers gather and analyze data, and facilitate learning. Clearly the district has made significant progress toward its goal of improving its public perception. A simplified budget presentation that provided breakfast attendees with an informational snapshot of the district’s financial help and complete information on how students are measuring up to state standards removes all mystery on the performance of local schools. Yet, the recognition that state budget practices push Sierra Vista and other school districts to deal with cash flow issues and concern that local school buildings may soon cost more to maintain, offered honest assessments that the public needs to know. Because Arizona legislators and the state Department of Education play with school funds and don’t abide by a schedule on payments to local districts, Sierra Vista school officials support carrying a substantial cash reserve. Effectively, instead of borrowing money and paying interest, the reserve allows the district to meet its payroll and other ongoing expenditures, until the state comes through with its promised shared revenues. That’s unfair to local school districts and ultimately, the same voters who elect our state legislators. Because the state fails to abide by a schedule of payments, local school district taxpayers pick up the additional costs of interest, or districts are forced to carry large reserves. Fixing the system would require the state to do a better job of policing its finances.
Time to change our pay-to-play system
J
ust this month, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg named Citizens United — the 2010 decision that gave corporations the same freedom of speech rights as people and rubber-stamped unlimited corporate spending in elections — as the one decision in the last decade she would overturn if she could. And President Barack Obama told Vox recently he “would love to see” a constitutional amendment overturning the decision. It’s rare for a sitting president and a Supreme Court justice to say publicly that a recent Supreme Court decision should be reversed, but this particular case has no shortage of critics — and with good reason. Over the past five years, campaign spending, especially from undisclosed sources known as “dark money,” has skyrocketed, with last year’s midterm election ranking as the most expensive on record. And the 2016 race is already looking ugly and expensive. The Republican circular shooting squad has been underway for quite a while — remember New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie calling Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul “dangerous,” and Paul calling Christie the “king of bacon” way back in summer of 2013? And while Hillary Clinton is still in the decision-making process, her would-be rivals have pulled no stops in critiquing her. For example, Paul recently accused her of facilitating ISIL’s rise and increasing Middle East instability (as if the region were stable before 2009). Jeb Bush is hoping to lock down donors in the New York City metropolitan area and to dissuade potential Republican rivals. He hosted a $100,000-a-ticket fundraiser, which will help
contribute to an estimated final haul of $50 to $100 million for his Right to Rise super PAC. It’s less than a year until voters will gather for caucuses or cast OMMENTARY primary ballots, but instead of hearing DONNA BRAZILE about candidates’ issue platforms, all we’re getting is stories about their closed-door meetings with big donors. Last month, the Koch brothers hosted an event for GOP presidential hopefuls to “try out” in front of a room full of billionaire donors. Shortly after this private “Koch primary,” the brothers announced their 2016 spending goal of nearly $900 million. With that kind of money up for grabs, it’s no wonder presidential hopeful Paul is considering changing some of his positions to appeal not to average voters, but to those signing the campaign checks. And there’s no question that Democratic donors are also looking for ways to match the donations made by big GOP donors. Unfortunately, the flood of money doesn’t just stop after elections are over. These powerful interests impact policy decisions once their handpicked politicians are in office. Voters know this is not how democracy is meant to work. Political speech should not just be for those with the most money. We understand that when a few millionaires and billionaires are able to secretly influence elections and candidates, we all pay the price on the issues that matter most to us. We need a system where everyone participates and everyone’s voice is heard. We need to ensure that
everyone knows who is trying to buy influence in our elections and government. We need politicians to play by common-sense rules and be held accountable. Most of all, we need to expand the voices of those left out — in some cases intentionally kept out — of the process. Last month, a group of Democrats and Republicans introduced a series of reform bills in Congress on the fifth anniversary of Citizens United. And nearly three in four Americans agree with President Obama in their support for a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision, with a petition in favor of that amendment garnering more than 5 million signatures. The demand for change is only growing and getting louder. At the local level, 16 states and about 600 cities and towns have passed resolutions or taken other action. With this local momentum, and national leaders like Justice Ginsburg and President Obama calling for a reversal of Citizens United, a constitutional amendment and other solutions to reduce the influence of money in politics might be closer than you think. As we look to 2016, presidential hopefuls and members of Congress should recognize that reducing the role of money in politics can be a winning campaign issue. And for voters, it’s time we ask candidates to disclose all their donors and ask third-party shadow groups to do the same. We deserve to know whether the policies our politicians pursue are more focused on good governance or are simply a quid pro quo arrangement to keep the campaign coffers filled.
imagine how a superintendent in good conscience can do this since counselors, transportation, librarians, food service, and speech therapists are critical to a teacher’s ability to teach. One in four children in Arizona live in poverty and they bring a host of challenges with them to school: challenges teachers can’t deal with on their own, especially with larger classes. As a 22-year Air Force veteran, I know that flying operations are generally considered the premier “mission essential” functions. But, AF leaders recognize flying operations can’t happen without support functions like food service, personnel, security, transportation, etc. Ultimately, the airman fueling the plane is just as critical to mission accomplishment as the pilot flying it. Yes, classrooms are where the main learning occurs, but classroom teachers can’t do their magic without the right kind of support. When the governor talks about cutting non-classroom funds by 5 percent, no matter how he spins it, that equates to cutting K-12 education by 5 percent. The governor also wants to take $23.9 million from the Student Success Fund to create the “Access Our Best Public Schools Fund” to expand
existing charter facilities/construct new ones. He claims this is because of the high waiting lists at best performing charters. Unfortunately these waiting lists are virtually impossible to validate because their for-profit corporations aren’t required to provide the same transparency as district schools. Is there a correlation between Arizona’s bottom 10 ranking in funding for K-12 education and 47th in performance? To a certain extent, I believe you get what you pay for. Close to 90 percent of Arizona’s students still attend community district schools and yet our state leadership continues to focus on creating more opportunities for profit on the backs of our children, to include making it easier and easier to funnel tax
payer dollars to private schools through Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (vouchers) and income tax credits that can be filed up to April 15 and are larger than credits allowed for public and charter schools. If Gov. Ducey really cared about K-12 education, he would focus on the schools we already have versus building new ones and he’d provide our schools real funding versus a mere shell game reallocation. In the end, claiming charter and private schools do better (a stretch), while starving our district schools of funding becomes a self-licking ice cream cone which serves those best who don’t need the help to begin with. Maybe that’s the plan. Linda Lyon SaddleBrooke
C
DONNA BRAZILE is a senior Democratic strategist, a political commentator and contributor to CNN and ABC News.
OUR READERS’ VIEWS The governor’s plan To the Editor: Gov. Doug Ducey called for a 5 percent reduction in non-classroom spending for district schools and a 3.5 percent reduction in additional assistance for charters. He claims the goals of the reduction are to 1) reduce the size of school administration and 2) refocus on students and teachers. Politicians know a call to “cut administration costs and ensure more money ends up in the classroom” sells to the masses because “administration costs” is often heard as “salaries for superintendents, principals and office staffs.” In reality, these “nonclassroom dollars” refer to administration, plant operations, food service, transportation, student support and instruction support. In fact, in terms of purely “administrative” costs, Arizona districts spend less than the national average. Areas like plant operations are where Arizona districts have higher costs; perhaps partially because there has been virtually no funding for adequate facility maintenance? Ducey realizes these are critical functions and that’s why he recommends requiring superintendents (or CEOs) and the school finance officer to certify the reductions will not affect the classroom. I can’t
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” — The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
MALLARD FILLMORE
Publisher Emeritus: Robert J. Wick Publisher Emeritus: Walter M. Wick Publisher: Francis Wick SIERRA VISTA
Assistant General Manager: Patricia Wick Editor: Eric Petermann Advertising Director: Becky Bjork Send letters to the editor by mail to 102 Fab Ave., Sierra Vista AZ 85635, or by e-mail to svhnews@svherald.com.
Business Manager: Joan Hancock Circulation Manager: Jeremy Feldman Night Plant Manager: Rhett Hartgrove B I S B E E D A I LY