AZ Senate Can’t Find GQP Votes To Override Education Funding Cap, But Expands School Vouchers On A Party-Line Vote

by

Above: Classic David Fitzsimmons cartoon, still true after all these years.

Michael Bryan posted on Tuesday, Arizona House Passes Resolution to Waive the AEL and Prevent the #AZFiscalCliff for AZ’s Schools:

Today, 17 Republicans joined all 28 present Democrats to pass HCR 2039. Now the spotlight turns to the AZ Senate to pass the matching Senate Concurrent Resolution 1050, also by a 2/3 majority.

“Ay, [but] there’s the rub.”

Senate President Karen Fann, who is too busy appealing the Court of Appeals decision ordering her to turn over Senate documents regarding the Cyber Ninjas sham “fraudit” to the Arizona Republic and American Oversight, and trying to keep the documents secret behind a claim of legislative privilege,  cannot seem to muster the Republican votes needed to pass Senate Concurrent Resolution 1050 by a 2/3 majority. The real question is, “is she really trying?”

Senate Republicans, however, had no trouble voting along party-lines to greatly expand school vouchers at the further expense of public schools.

Howard Fischer reports, GOP-led Arizona Senate approves huge expansion of school voucher program:

State senators voted Wednesday to make more taxpayer money available to more parents to send their children to private and parochial schools.

The 16-12 vote, with only Republicans in support, sends Senate Bill 1657 over to the House for consideration.

Senate Democrats said the measure is built on a fallacy that vast expansion of the voucher program is designed to help students from poor families. They pointed out that much of the proposal, sponsored by Sen. Paul Boyer, R-Glendale, has no income caps.

Boyer did not dispute some of what detractors were saying.

Note: Paul Boyer teaches 11th grade Humane Letters part-time at North Phoenix Preparatory Academy and previously taught at Veritas Preparatory Academy. Both are part of the Great Hearts Academies. Sounds like a conflict of interest to me (this has been a regular thing among legislators in the Arizona legislature, no one has ever been held accountable for self-serving legislation).

For example, he acknowledged that the measure would grant automatic vouchers to children of first responders and first-line health care workers. It would also make vouchers available to any student living in the boundaries of a Title I school — those serving a large percentage of low-income students — regardless of their own financial status.

Also eligible would be children of veterans. The measure also would provide vouchers to any student in a school district that is spending more on a per-student basis than the approximately $11,000 that state universities charge in tuition.

Still, Boyer said, it would provide a “lifeline” to students in schools that are not meeting students’ needs.

Um, dumbass, As of March 1 Arizona schools will not be meeting students’ needs because of political sabotage by Republlcans in the Arizona legislature who will not waive a spending cap from 42 years ago (no longer relevant today) to allow school districts to spend the money already appropriated by the state legislature last year.

Sen. Sally Ann Gonzales, D-Tucson, said that ignores the fact that many students who come from poor families won’t be able to take advantage of the $7,000 vouchers, and not just because the tuition at many private schools is higher than that. Gonzales said those in rural areas simply don’t have the option of a nearby private school.

Then there’s the transportation issue.

“This doesn’t work for families that are working two jobs, sometimes three jobs, just to keep food on the table and a roof over their families’ head,” Gonzales said, referring to parents who lack the time to drive a child to a private or parochial school.

“They can’t just hop on a city bus,” added Sen. Martin Quezada, D-Glendale.

There’s also the fact that private schools need not take all applicants.

“Eligibility does not equate to the ability to use it,” Quezada said. The “choice” in this program is not for parents but for the schools that get to pick and choose who to admit, he said.

“It’s not our ELL students,” he said, meaning students who need additional instruction to learn English.

“It’s not our kids with disabilities, it’s not our kids with discipline issues, it’s not our kids that are behind in their classes,” Quezada said. “They’re going to pick the kids that are easier and cheaper to educate and so that will raise their scores and make them look like a high-performing school.”

Sen. Vince Leach, R-Tucson, said the opposition to making more vouchers available ignores what already is happening.

“Parents are not walking away from public schools,” he said. “They are absolutely running.”

He said that’s why existing law provides vouchers for students attending schools that are rated D or F.

This, of course, is a lie that anti-public education Republicans love to tell.

Before the Senate Education Committee hearing on this bill last week:

Jim Swanson, CEO of Kitchell Group, joined parents opposing the bill, saying the money would be better used in public schools.

“I’m a firm believer in funding the 93% of our students, of our kids, that go to public education. The state has made substantial progress in those last few years. But now, with COVID and learning loss we have more and more obstacles ahead of us in our schools,” Swanson said.

Foes of Boyer’s measure argued the solution is spending the money to fix schools with low academic achievement. But Leach said that often is fought, as school boards call it an issue of “local control.”

Ultimately, he said, there’s nothing wrong with the state providing funds so parents have more choices. “Parents know best,” Leach said.

Quezada said Leach’s arguments undermine his point. “If it’s happening already, why do we need to expand it?” he asked. [Leach is not the sharpest pencil in the box.]

A prior bid by the Republican-controlled Legislature to vastly expand the voucher system was rejected by voters in 2018.

But Boyer said that was because some voucher supporters feared ratifying the legislation would impose a permanent limit on how many vouchers could be provided in the future. He cited polls he said show strong support for what he is proposing.

The question of whether the poor would be helped aside, Quezada said he sees vouchers as a method of promoting segregation, as some parents with the means will take advantage of them to move their children to private schools.

Boyer called that contention “preposterous.” Vouchers are just the reverse, he argued, in providing parents and their children alternatives to neighborhood schools. “Assigning families to inferior schools based upon their home address is true segregation,” he said.

So where do things stand with less than two weeks until the March 1 “fiscal cliff” for public schools? The Arizona Mirror reports, House passes measure to avoid school funding cuts, but Senate appears 1 GOP vote short:

[W]ith the Senate’s 14 Democrats unanimously supporting the measure, legislative leaders need only five Republicans to get to the two-thirds supermajority required to raise the aggregate expenditure limit, which is necessary to allow schools to spend the money that lawmakers budgeted for K-12 education last year.

Five Republican senators — Nancy Barto, Paul Boyer, Tyler Pace, T.J. Shope and Senate President Karen Fann, who sponsored the resolution to raise the cap — confirmed to the Arizona Mirror that they’re supporting the measure.

That means there are 19 votes. But the pivotal 20th vote proved elusive on Tuesday. Fann delayed the start of the Senate’s floor session by more than a half hour while she tried to round up the last vote. She wouldn’t confirm how many votes she already has, but says she’s close.

The problem is that many Republican senators won’t vote for the resolution until they know that it won’t open the door for Proposition 208, a voter-approved income tax hike on wealthier Arizonans. The Arizona Supreme Court ruled last year that the tax hike is illegal if the new revenue would exceed the aggregate expenditure limit, and sent the case back to a Maricopa County Superior Court judge to determine. So far, Judge John Hannah has taken his time.

Last week, Hannah told legislative leaders that he’ll issue his ruling on his own timeline. The Arizona Constitution sets a March 1 deadline for lawmakers to raise the expenditure cap before districts will have to start making budget cuts. Superintendent of Public Instruction Kathy Hoffman says that would represent a cumulative 16% cut for school districts.

Because the school year would be roughly three-quarters over when the cuts are scheduled to go into effect, many school districts have said the impact would be massive — and could force teacher layoffs and school shut-downs.

“Clearly, (Hannah’s) comments last week were less than respectful for the process. He basically said, ‘I’ve got other things on my agenda and I’ve got 60 days to do it, so I’ll get to it when I get to it,’” Fann, R-Prescott, told the Mirror. “Unfortunately, because the judge is holding up the ruling, I’ve got some members who were not comfortable voting on it yet until they see the ruling from him.”

Republican holdouts, for now at least

That’s the position Sen. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, took [the author of the GQP Flat Tax giveaway to wealthy Arizonans]. Mesnard is willing to vote to raise the spending cap, but not until the judge rules on the Prop. 208 issue. Even though the House and Senate resolutions only authorize schools to exceed the cap by the $1,154,028,997 the legislature budgeted for them last year, Mesnard said the judge’s delay makes him wonder if Hannah is waiting for the legislature to vote. If lawmakers lift the cap, he worries that the judge will come back and say the situation has changed in some way that will allow Prop. 208 to go into effect.

So school funding for your child’s education is not what is important to Republicans here. Preserving their tax cut giveaways to wealthy Arizonans, and overturning the will of the people who voted for the Invest In Ed citizen initiative to fund public education is what is important to them.

“I’ve gone from frustrated to furious that this is the situation in front of us that was entirely avoidable. And I don’t understand why it’s taking so long,” he said.

Yes, “the situation in front of us [is] entirely avoidable,” just vote to lift the spending cap already!

Remember, if your child’s school has to shut down or lay off teachers after March 1, it is because Republicans are trying to preserve their tax cut giveaways to wealthy Arizonans at the expense of public education. And this radical Republican J.D.Mesnard was the author of that Flat Tax giveaway. Hold him accountable for his arrogance.

It’s unclear when the Senate might vote on the resolution to lift the cap. Fann said Republican lawmakers have filed a petition for special action with the Arizona Supreme Court. They hope to convince the justices to either order Hannah to act quickly — he has until March 10 to rule in the case — or to take over the case themselves.

Several Republican senators declined to state their positions on the resolution.

“I’m going to vote when it’s up on the board,” Sen. Sine Kerr, R-Liberty, said.

Sen. David Livingston, R-Peoria, said he was a no on Tuesday, but that could change in the days to come. He wouldn’t say if his concern was specifically linked to Prop. 208.

“Just everything. It’s not an easy discussion. This is not a slam-dunk decision. So, I want more information,” he said.

Sen. Vince Leach, R-Tucson, said he’s waiting for one piece of information to come back before he takes a position, though he declined to say exactly what that was.

“I am not hopeful that I’m going to get the information. And if that information doesn’t come back in the affirmative, I will be in the negative,” Leach said.

Democratic Sen. Juan Mendez was absent from the Senate on Tuesday while he was home with his newborn child, which could have potentially left leadership scrambling for another Republican vote. But Fann said Mendez had permission to vote from his legislative office under the Senate’s COVID-19 protocols, and that her understanding was that he came to the Capitol in case his vote was needed.

The legal vs. the practical

While the Arizona Constitution sets a March 1 deadline, Mesnard said the more important deadline is actually April 1. That’s when state law requires school districts to submit their revised budgets. Until then, districts won’t actually have to make the cuts.

That’s technically true, but it doesn’t necessarily mean districts won’t face any problems if the legislature misses the March 1 deadline but acts before April 1, said Chris Kotterman, a lobbyist for the Arizona School Boards Association.

“That’s the legal deadline versus the practical deadline,” Kotterman said.

If the legislature doesn’t lift the cap by March 1, Kotterman said districts will start planning for likely cuts. That could include providing teachers and other certified staff with notices of pending salary cuts. It could even include phasing in cuts ahead of time to lessen the burden of making them after April 1. Districts will likely lose faith that the legislature will lift the cap and begin taking action accordingly. Teachers and other staff might not wait around and could quit earlier if they have the option to get other jobs, he said.

“You start running into timing issues where, if you dilly-dally too long, school districts are in the process of making budget reductions while you’re trying to figure out whether or not you’re going to let them spend the money,” Kotterman said. “I think there’s a potential for actual damage even before April 1.”

* * *

House Speaker Rusty Bowers, R-Mesa, didn’t appear to share the concerns of many Senate Republicans that raising the cap would affect the litigation over Prop. 208.

“No one ever said the schools were doing something wrong. We simply said we wanted to make sure there was no linkage between this issue and other issues,” he said.

What the Arizona legislature should do is refer this 42 year old school spending cap back to the voters in a referendum on this year’s ballot for repeal, and let’s be done with this antiquated provision (no longer relevant today) approved by mostly long-since dead voters in 1980. (Some of us are still around. I voted against it).