Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, announced Thursday that he plans to introduce legislation that severs all state ties and support of Arizona PBS. That’s after the station gave Democratic gubernatorial candidate Katie Hobbs a one-on-one interview. (Photo by Pexels)
A Republican state representative announced plans to introduce legislation that would cut off funding for Arizona PBS in response to the station giving Democratic gubernatorial candidate Katie Hobbs a one-on-one interview.
Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, announced in a Thursday news release that he intends to introduce legislation that severs all state ties and support of Arizona PBS. Hobbs announced Wednesday on MSNBC that she would have her own appearance on Arizona PBS, the day the station and the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission had scheduled a debate for Hobbs and her opponent, Republican Kari Lake.
“It would be inappropriate for the state to continue its relationship with AZPBS, given its sabotaging of the clean election debates that were approved by the voters, Kavanagh said in the release. “The clean election rules are clear. If a candidate refuses to debate, their opponent (who is willing to debate) is eligible to have a 30-minute question and answer session.”
Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills
The Clean Elections Commission said it rejected an idea pitched by the Hobbs campaign to host separate, town-hall style events with the candidates, going forward with the traditional debate format and giving no time for a candidate to respond to questions if they didn’t show up. Kavanagh said in the release he planned to move forward with the legislation unless Arizona PBS cancels its one-on-one interview and reverts to its original plan with the commission.
The Arizona Capitol Times previously reported that Hobbs has defended not debating Lake throughout her campaign because Hobbs said debating Lake wouldn’t be substantive and would devolve into a “circus” of interjections and false claims about the 2020 election, which is what she saw during the GOP primary debate.
Lake said during a Wednesday news conference that she would consider pulling public funding from Arizona PBS over the incident if elected.
“I think we need to look at it,” Lake said. “We the people own ASU. This is not an arm of the Democratic National Committee. And unfortunately, it appears that that’s what it has become,” she added at another point (ASU owns and operates the station).
In a statement to the Arizona Capitol Times on Wednesday, ASU Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication Dean Battinto Batts said Arizona PBS offered both Lake and Hobbs each 30-minute one-on-one interviews, not connected to the Clean Elections Commission.
Kavanagh echoed Lake’s feelings on the matter in the news release.
“The terrible decision by the heads of AZPBS, if uncorrected, will encourage future clean elections candidates to avoid engaging in a debate and deprive voters of information they need to make their voting decisions,” he said in the release. “Moreover, I believe the station’s decision to reward a candidate’s refusal to debate, by giving them free television time, is tantamount to making a partisan political contribution to their campaign. AZPBS needs to keep its thumb off the election scale and not shortchange the voters.”
Kavanagh participated in a Clean Elections debate this year but not in 2020 for Legislative District 23, the Scottsdale Progress reported.
The legislation would apply to all ties and contracts between state agencies and universities and Arizona PBS, according to the news release. It would also include donations, along with contracts for services, goods, and rental space. Kavanagh also plans to prohibit the state from providing donations to any group that donates money, personnel or services to the station.
On the morning of Oct. 12, 2022, Republican gubernatorial nominee Kari Lake was planning to sit down for a one-on-one interview co-hosted by Arizona PBS and the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission at 3:30 in the afternoon, after Democratic candidate Katie Hobbs declined to participate in a gubernatorial candidate debate. But by the end of the day, that plan was off, Hobbs had her own one-on-one scheduled with Arizona PBS and Lake wouldn’t say whether she was planning to take part in a different interview with the station.
On Wednesday morning, Republican gubernatorial nominee Kari Lake was set to sit down for a one-on-one interview co-hosted by Arizona PBS and the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission at 3:30 in the afternoon, after Democratic candidate Katie Hobbs declined to participate in a gubernatorial candidate debate.
But by the end of the day, that plan was off, Hobbs had her own one-on-one scheduled with Arizona PBS and Lake wouldn’t say whether she was planning to participate in a different interview with the station.
Instead of sitting down for a 30-minute interview with longtime Arizona PBS journalist Ted Simons as planned, Lake held an impromptu half-hour press conference at 4 p.m. outside the station’s studios in which she blasted Hobbs, Arizona PBS and Arizona State University (which owns and operates the station).
“Unfortunately, I’m running against a coward who’s afraid to stand on a debate stage and talk about what she wants to do for Arizona. And unfortunately, PBS and ASU have done a backroom deal with that coward to give her airtime that she does not deserve,” Lake said.
Kari Lake
During the news conference, Lake stood in front of a pair of oversized prop checks showing the payouts that Arizona has sent to Talonya Adams, a former Senate staffer who won a lawsuit alleging she faced discrimination and retaliation as a Democratic staffer during the time Hobbs was the Democratic leader in the Senate. She didn’t answer journalists’ questions on issues from abortion to early voting to the 2020 election.
Lake didn’t provide evidence of a “backroom deal,” and the exact timeline that led to the turn of events remained unclear. But Wednesday’s events represented yet another twist in a gubernatorial debate saga that’s already lasted two months and isn’t over yet.
In an appearance on MSNBC on Wednesday morning, Hobbs trotted out her usual explanation for declining to join Lake on the debate stage, and also dropped the news that she would have her own appearance on Arizona PBS.
“How do you debate someone who refuses to accept the truth, who doesn’t live in facts? It doesn’t do any service to voters,” Hobbs said. “In fact, PBS is also giving me the same format that Kari Lake has, so she certainly will not go unanswered,” she added moments later.
A spokeswoman for the Hobbs campaign said the interview was set for next Tuesday, Oct. 18.
It seemed like a win for Hobbs, who had long argued that PBS and the Clean Elections Commission should ditch the debate plans in favor of two separate, town-hall style events with the candidates.
Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, the Democratic nominee for governor
But the Clean Elections Commission had explicitly rejected that idea a month ago and said that if Hobbs wouldn’t show up and face Lake onstage, then the commission would revert to a one-on-one with Lake. (That’s what happened in the Democratic primary, when Hobbs declined to debate challenger Marco Lopez.)
And the move to offer a separate interview to Hobbs on Arizona PBS – albeit in an event that wouldn’t be officially connected to the Clean Elections Commission – caught the commission off guard.
The Clean Elections Commission said it was surprised to learn about PBS’ plans and was postponing the event in response.
“This decision is disappointing, especially following the multiple attempts on behalf of all the partners involved in producing this year’s general election debates, to organize a traditional gubernatorial debate between the two candidates,” the commission wrote in a statement. They said they would “identify a new venue, partner and date” for the event.
Lake responded with a blistering statement calling the move a “betrayal” and claiming PBS “caved” to Hobbs’ demands.
In a statement provided by a spokesman, ASU Cronkite School Dean Battinto Batts made it clear that an offer was on the table for both candidates, but it wasn’t connected to the Clean Elections Commission.
“Arizona PBS has offered both Kari Lake and Katie Hobbs a 30-minute interview as candidates for governor, as part of our Horizon news program. It is our responsibility as a news agency to provide the public with access to the candidates who are running for office so they can learn more and make informed decisions,” Batts said.
The Hobbs campaign declined to say when it got the offer from PBS and a PBS spokesman didn’t immediately reply to an email seeking comment about the timeline.
The Hobbs campaign blamed Lake for the drama.
“Kari Lake is once again creating chaos and proving she has no interest in a real conversation about the issues facing Arizonans. Lake is refusing to show up to speak to Arizona voters because she doesn’t want to answer for her extreme record,” spokeswoman Sarah Robinson said in a text message.
At the press conference, Lake evaded reporters’ questions about her stance on policy issues like abortion and news events like an effort in Cochise County to hand count all ballots in the 2022 election. (Lake previously filed a lawsuit seeking to force hand counting throughout the state.)
At one point, she even suggested that her views on some policy areas aren’t relevant.
“I don’t think you all realize that the legislature writes our election law, right? Legislature,” she said. “So whatever I want really doesn’t matter. It’s what the legislature comes up with and then I work with them.”
She also brought up her recently-announced plan to wipe out municipal taxes on groceries and rent.
The event was punctuated by anti-Lake protestors screaming interruptions, sometimes including obscenities.
Even while dodging questions about whether she would accept her own invitation to appear on PBS’ Horizon show, Lake said there’s one event she’s going to show up for.
“I will show up on Tuesday,” Lake said, referring to the date of Hobbs’ scheduled interview with PBS, “and I expect to be on a debate stage with her.”
Javid Qaem earned a master’s degree in public administration from Arizona State University in 2012. Now a professor of practice at ASU, he is among the thousands of Afghan refugees who have come to the United States to escape the Taliban over the past two decades. (Photo courtesy of Javid Qaem)
Thousands of Afghan refugees who have come to the United States to escape the Taliban over the past two decades struggle with day-to-day tasks like finding jobs, opening bank accounts and getting driver’s licenses.
Of particular concern to many is their parolee status, which allows them to remain in the U.S. for no more than two years. But bipartisan legislation introduced in August in Congress would grant Afghan refugees permanent legal status, allowing them to avoid the lengthy asylum process and possible deportation.
In August 2021, the final American forces withdrew from Kabul, ending the longest war in U.S. history. But Afghans have been seeking better lives in America since the U.S. invaded their country to root out Osama bin Laden in October of 2001.
Teen struggles after father kidnapped
“Finding jobs here is different … like putting in a direct deposit and like tracking all of those,” said Ali, 18, an Arizona State University student from Afghanistan. He said new refugees struggle with understanding job benefits, dealing with spam mail and, in some cases, even using a microwave.
To protect Ali and his family, Cronkite News is only using his middle name. He fled Afghanistan at 11, leaving behind his mom and four siblings and traveling with another family and a human smuggler to at least three countries before he landed in the U.S. at 15.
His father owned a shop in Afghanistan where Ali worked every day after school. His father chose to sell groceries to American soldiers and Afghan police, which angered the Taliban.
“The Taliban did not like this,” Ali recalled. “They warned us one time, ‘Do not sell this stuff to people, to the police, like American soldiers’ … my father did not listen to that.”
When his father went missing one day, Ali’s family searched for months in vain. Then a neighbor informed Ali the Taliban had kidnapped his father, and because Ali worked in his father’s shop, the Taliban was looking for him, too.
Ali said life “is not really that important over there,” and he was scared a similar fate would befall him.
“So my mom sent me with one of my relatives to Kabul,” Ali said. “Everything that my mom had, she sacrificed for me. She saved me.”
He spent the next few years in India, Malaysia and Indonesia, where he lived in an orphanage. His mom and siblings remained in Afghanistan, and he felt alone.
“It’s been challenging for me, mostly growing up, like how to cook for myself and how to wash my clothing,” Ali said. In 2018, Ali came to the United States as part of the Unaccompanied Refugee Minors Program, and a foster family in Arizona took him in. The program, run by the Office of Refugee Resettlement, provides refugee foster care services for qualifying children who have no parent or guardian to care for them.
Diplomat here under temporary status
Javid Qaem, a professor of practice at ASU’s Watts College of Public Service and Community Solutions, arrived in the United States in January 2022 under parolee status.
When the U.S. pulled out of Afghanistan in August last year, Qaem, an ASU alumnus, was the Afghani ambassador to China.
“For four weeks, we were just crying. We didn’t know what really happened,” he recalled.
Qaem held the title of ambassador to China but no longer had a government to report to and said going back to Afghanistan “was not an option because there was a fear, there were also these revenge and target killings still going on.”
The U.S. Embassy in China helped him and his team find refuge in the United States. Qaem sent an email to his alma mater looking for a job, and “they took care of its own alum.”
Qaem called himself one of the luckiest because other refugees’ experience has not been that smooth.
“It’s very difficult for my family; they’re still adjusting. My wife, my kids, it’s a shock for them,” he said. “For my colleagues that came, it’s difficult. It’s been seven, eight months, nine months now. Many of them … don’t even have jobs.”
Act would give refugees permanent status
Under U.S. immigration law, someone who’s ineligible to enter the U.S. as a refugee, immigrant or nonimmigrant may be “paroled” into the country by the secretary of Homeland Security. The provision is only used for emergency, humanitarian and public interest reasons.
Parolee status is especially stressful for refugees, said Nerja Sumic, the national field manager for We Are All America, a national campaign created in 2017 to help asylum seekers and refugees in danger. The temporary status allows them to stay only for 18 to 24 months, she said.
Many people under the parolee status, if they were to “step foot on Afghanistan soil, they will be automatically killed,” said Sumic, who’s lobbying for passage of the Afghan Adjustment Act.
“It would give them permanent status here; otherwise, they will have to go through the asylum process and seeking asylum if their asylum cases are approved,” she said.
Democratic Rep. Greg Stanton (Photo by Ross D. Franklin/Associated Press)
“We have a moral obligation to provide refuge to our Afghan partners who put their lives at risk to protect American troops. They shouldn’t be left in legal limbo, not while Congress has the power to grant them security and safety,” Stanton said in a press release in August.
Both Ali and Qaem support the bill.
“All of us want to go back. It’s just you can’t live there anymore,” Qaem said.
Ali doesn’t have to worry about his own status, but Sumic said his family would be helped if the act becomes law. Ali said he misses his mom and applied for his family to come to the U.S. but is still waiting to hear back.
Ali’s goal is “to be able to support them and … to help bring them here and reunite with them.”
LGBTQ activists in Arizona are increasing efforts to fight stigma and intolerance amid the global outbreak of monkeypox while also trying to get more people vaccinated...
Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals
Water from the Colorado River diverted through the Central Arizona Project fills an irrigation canal on August 18 in Maricopa. Climate change is causing hotter temperatures around Arizona and other areas of the Southwest, leading to drought conditions that are causing concern for Colorado River states. (Photo by Matt York/Associated Press)
Climate change is causing hotter temperatures in Arizona and other areas of the Southwest, leading to drought conditions that are leaving Colorado River states grappling with what actions to take next.
Experts say that the current drought is no coincidence, but that the dry conditions are linked to climate change. The hotter temperatures lead to the ground becoming drier and water evaporating more quickly. As a result, there is less groundwater and less water flowing into lakes and rivers. The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions predicts that climate change will continue to get worse.
Margaret Garcia (Photo courtesy of Arizona State University)
Estimates by the National Drought Mitigation Center say that more than 3 million Arizonans are living in drought areas. The longest duration of drought in Arizona lasted 512 weeks starting on August 18, 2009, and ending on June 4, 2019, according to the National Integrated Drought Information System’s website. The most intense period of drought in the state occurred the week of December 1, 2020, the website said. Drought is characterized by a string of dry years, occasionally interrupted by a wet year or two.
Many of the water related issues in Arizona stream back to the Colorado River. According to the National Integrated Drought Information System, the Colorado River provides water to seven states, 40 million people, 4 million acres of farmland and 29 Indian tribes. As years of drought continue, water supplies become more strained.
“The Colorado River Basin states have been aware of this problem for a while,” said Margaret Garcia, an Arizona State University professor with the School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment. “The challenge is that it’s that what they really need to do is negotiate a way to use less permanently, and everyone’s digging in their heels a little bit, because you don’t want to be the one to have big losses, and you want to retain as many resources for your state as you can.”
The state of Arizona will need to make difficult decisions and have tough conversations. As rivers and lakes lower, it is becoming clear that ignoring the problem is no longer sustainable. Water restrictions will cut Arizona’s water supply by 21%. The agricultural industry will be hit especially hard by these limitations.
As climate change gets worse, states, counties and industries will have to have challenging conversations. They must decide which state will face more severe cuts in water use.
Mark Apel, the environmental projects coordinator with Cochise County, said 92% of water in the county is being used for agriculture.
However, because of the lowering water table, Apel said that local farmers are being forced to move away to find work due to unsustainable conditions. Many farmers and ranchers pump well water, but as the ground dries up, they are given a difficult decision. Spend more money to dig deeper into the ground or look elsewhere for work.
Many people have the misconception that Arizona is a barren desert, but according to Stefanie Smallhouse, state president of the Arizona Farm Bureau, Arizona has a strong farming and ranching industry.
Arizona agriculture is a $23.3 billion industry, Smallhouse said. She added that Yuma provides 90% of the nation’s lettuce. Because of the plentiful sunshine, Arizona farmers are able to grow crops year-round. However, the arid conditions are putting this industry in jeopardy. Smallhouse said policymakers should consider the important impact of Arizona agriculture when making decisions about water cuts.
“Everyone else is trying to figure out how to use less water. And in the process, you know, they’re looking to agriculture as a water bank instead of a food bank. And that’s troubling,” Smallhouse said. “We’re not going to necessarily conserve ourselves out of these problems that we’re having currently. It’s gonna require a lot more augmentation.”
Smallhouse said people need to think about whether they want local food production or to obtain produce from another country because for every gallon of water taken away from agriculture to provide to future development “that’s food production you’re taking away.” She also said that something as simple as transitioning from maintaining a grassy lawn to installing native plant species can make a difference in conserving water to help sustain the agricultural industry.
The federal government is also working to chip away at the water crisis. For example, the Inflation Reduction Act allocated $4 billion to drought relief.
Nevada also is experiencing extreme drought conditions. As a result, Lake Mead, which lies on the Arizona-Colorado border, has experienced an alarming decrease in water. According to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Lake Mead is at its lowest level since 1937.
As of July, Lake Mead was only filled at 27% capacity. Images of the lake show a striking difference between 2000 and 2022. The lake, connected to the Colorado River, is closed off by the Hoover Dam. The record-low level is concerning because it provides water and generates electricity to 25 million people across farms, cities, and tribal lands.
Despite the seemingly grim situation, the city of Phoenix is taking a more optimistic approach.
“Phoenix is built for drought,” Phoenix’s website says. “However, the city is prepared to establish such restrictions in future years if absolutely necessary to ensure the safety and health of our residents.” It continues, telling Arizonans to “embrace the desert lifestyle.”
The city of Phoenix also says that the metro area has a variety of water sources available, including the Colorado River, Verde River and Salt River. It assures residents that Arizona has experienced decades long droughts over the past 1,000 years and that Arizona’s water demand has decreased by 30% over the past 20 years.
A cyclist crosses an intersection on the campus of Arizona State University in 2020 in Tempe. The new Jack’s Law aims to protect college and high students against mental and physical abuse and sexual humiliation, as well as other degrading acts that are typically behind hazing rituals. It is named after 19-year-old ASU student Jack Culolias, whose body was found in Tempe Town Lake nearly 10 years ago, after he drank excessive amounts of alcohol as part of a pledge to an ASU fraternity. (AP Photo/Matt York)
You may remember 19-year-old Arizona State University student Jack Culolias, whose body was found in Tempe Town Lake nearly 10 years ago. He had been drinking excessive amounts of alcohol as part of a senseless event to pledge an Arizona State University fraternity. He drowned in Tempe Town Lake.
It took 16 days to find Jack’s body. It’s taken a decade to find justice. I am Grace Culolias, Jack’s mother. And I am Pat McGroder, Grace’s attorney.
When Jack vanished, no one was giving any immediate answers. It was only when Grace searched the shores of Tempe Town Lake and found Jack’s red tennis shoe, that the truth of what happened began to unfold.
Grace Culolias
We have not forgotten about Jack or the tragic and needless way he died. In addition to holding the Greek system accountable, we also worked with state Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, on a new law that makes hazing illegal in Arizona. Arizona was one of only six states in which hazing is not a crime. Not anymore. This new law, Jack’s Law, goes into effect this month just as countless college freshmen consider joining a fraternity or sorority.
Our goal in getting this law passed was to keep tragedies like Jack’s death from happening again, as well as protecting the health and safety of this vulnerable population.
In addition to fatal outcomes, many hazing incidents leave young people with emotional scars and health complications that can last a lifetime.
An 18-year-old ASU freshman fraternity pledge nearly died following a series of hazing incidents during “Hell Week” by a fraternity at ASU in 2018. He was sleep deprived, tortured and forced to consume feces-laden candy and drink large amounts of alcohol. The experience left him with permanent physical injury.
National fraternities have promised no more hazing. ASU has done its best. And Jack’s Law will hold the guilty accountable if God forbid the system fails again.
Pat McGroder
The vile and cruel manner in which students have been hazed must end now! Will Jack’s Law guarantee that? We don’t know. We can only hope.
No parent should have to wander the shoreline at Tempe Town Lake wondering why her young son vanished. No young person should be left with permanent health problems for simply wanting to find friends at a vast university. No young person should be forced to pay such a horrible price for the privilege of “fitting in.”
We want to thank Rep. Kavanagh, Arizona lawmakers, and Governor Ducey for creating and passing Jack’s Law. If you have a child starting college, you should thank them as well.
College is supposed to be a place where young lives go to flourish, not perish. The price of seeking a little companionship should not be torture or death. It’s surreal that we need law to spell that out. But the reality is we DO need such a law on the books.
Grace Culolias is the mother of 19-year-old Arizona State University student Jack Culolias, whose body was found in Tempe Town Lake nearly 10 years ago after he had drunk excessive amounts of alcohol as part of pledging to join an ASU fraternity. Pat McGroder is Grace’s attorney.
Jose Patino, director of Education and External Affairs, and Reyna Montoya, founder and CEO of Aliento; were Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients, who are...
Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals
Kenneth Skinner’s house sits on a hillside in north Phoenix on July 1. The home is constructed with expanded polystyrene foam and Sabscrete, a concrete mix developed by Strata International Group. (Photo by Troy Hill/Cronkite News)
Amid global climate change and a chronic shortage of affordable housing, local construction companies and nonprofits are taking innovative steps to make homes more energy efficient and environmentally sustainable.
Strata International Group, headquartered in Phoenix, has made a name by building homes out of foam and concrete, and Habitat for Humanity of Central Arizona has successfully 3D printed a home for a Tempe family – the first structure printed in Arizona.
These energy-efficient and affordable materials and techniques arrive at an opportune time. A 2018 study by the National Low Income Housing Coalition reported a shortage of more than 7.2 million rental homes for low-income renters, and a 2019 report by the International Energy Agency and the U.N. Environment Programme found that the construction industry accounts for 39% of energy-related carbon emissions.
The foam home
To form the structure of a house, Strata uses a system it calls SABS, which utilizes an expanded polystyrene foam that is similar to Styrofoam. The foam is shaped, the shapes are bonded together into walls, ceilings and floors, then coated inside and out with a layer of the company’s special concrete mix, called Sabscrete. It holds everything together, protects the foam from impact, weather and fire, and allows the surface to be painted and textured. No lumber or steel is used.
“These houses are built to last 300, 400, 500 years,” said Amir Saebi, executive operations manager at Strata, adding that the foam acts as insulation – meaning less energy is required to cool or heat homes. That benefits both homeowners and the environment.
Contractor Kenneth Skinner, who’s using SABS to build his personal home in north Phoenix, expects the solar panels he’s installing on the roof to meet all his energy needs because of the insulating foam.
Because SABS doesn’t use lumber, it’s a big cost savings at a time of supply chain issues and inflation.
“It was going to cost me somewhere between $35,000 to $40,000 more … because of the lumber prices,” Skinner said. “So that’s right when I got introduced (to) Strata, and so I saved that money.”
Skinner is constructing his home with only a few workers; Saebi said some builds can have as few as three workers, given that construction is less intensive because workers only have to move large slabs of foam and Sabscrete mix.
But it’s not entirely eco-friendly, as Saebi acknowledged. Expanded polystyrene foam is made from petroleum waste products, he said, but that impact is offset because the homes are expected to last centuries – far longer than contemporary homes made of wood.
The printed house
Habitat for Humanity took another approach to affordable, sustainable homes: a giant 3D printer.
The equipment applies thin layers of concrete, one over the other, until a full wall or frame is erected, then workers pack insulation in the space between the wall layers. Once the exterior and interior walls are complete, the floors, ceilings and installations are completed using traditional building techniques. Habitat for Humanity estimates 70% to 80% of the 1,738-square-foot, three-bedroom house was printed.
It’s the first 3D printed home the nonprofit has built – and the first in Arizona – and the idea came from two Arizona State University graduates in sustainability. Habitat officials say they can’t calculate an exact cost for the project because most materials were donated, but they hope to use this technology to build more at lower costs.
3D printed houses are more energy efficient than traditional houses because concrete and the solidly packed insulation sustain internal temperatures.
“We’ve heard from the family (who lives in the home) that the AC doesn’t really come on much,” said Dusty Parsons, the chief marketing officer for Habitat for Humanity. “When it does, it’s only on for a few minutes, the house … stays very, very cool because it’s a solid double wall of concrete with foam insulation.”
The printer, made by the German company Peri and donated by them for use in this project, is supported by metal pillars and moved around the site on sliders controlled by computer.
Cronkite News reporter Jessica Herrera contributed to this story.
Voters will have to choose candidates for the Arizona Corporation Commission with vastly different opinions on how to reach a critical balance in curating the state’s energy policy while protecting Arizonans’ health.
Candidates for the ACC differ greatly on what they say should be the role that the commission takes in curating Arizona’s energy policy, including if regulations and mandates are a government overreach or necessary to secure a healthy future for residents. Some of the candidates oppose such rules, saying they drive up utility costs for Arizonans.
Republicans currently hold a 3-2 advantage on the commission with two positions up for election this year. Candidates include three Republicans and two Democrats.
The primary election will be held on August 2. Given that the top two candidates from each party’s primary will advance to the general election in November, it is a virtual certainty that both Democrats will make it, while only two of the three Republicans will move forward to the general election. The top two candidates who then get the highest vote total in the general election will join the commission.
Sandra Kennedy
On the team of Democrats is incumbent Sandra Kennedy, who was first elected to the commission in 2008 and then later in 2018. She is the first African American candidate in Arizona to win a statewide office. Kennedy was first elected to the Arizona House of Representatives in 1986, where she served for six years, and then to the Arizona State Senate in 1992, where she served for another six.
Kennedy is running on a platform she described as “beholden to the people, not utility monopolies or special interests.” She said she wants to fight corruption and increase the transparency of the commission.
Kennedy said she believes that creating Arizona’s energy policy lies strongly within the power of the Corporation Commission, calling it the “4th branch of government.” She also touts a record of opposing what she considered unjust rate increases, which she said she can do by proposing amendments to lower the rate of return so that companies can “profit, but not gouge, the ratepayers.”
“We are a regulated entity; we should be regulated. And I am a very loud voice at the commission, I don’t bite my tongue,” Kennedy said. “And I have been very vocal that I am not a friend of the utilities. I was elected by the people of this state to represent them. And I intend to do just that.”
Lauren Kuby
Kennedy is joined by Democrat Lauren Kuby, who is finishing her second term on the Tempe City Council. Kuby also serves as senior global futures scientist at Arizona State University’s Global Futures Laboratory and she manages the Stardust Center for Affordable Homes and Family. Kuby and Kennedy say the commission should exercise its power to instill mandates that will fight climate change.
“We are in a crisis in Arizona, a climate crisis, whether you look at their frequency, and wildfires or extreme heat, that mega-drought, the worst drought in 1,200 years, when you look at the air quality and water quality,” Kuby said. “But I also think there’s an opportunity to really take the lead. We can lead the country in this transition to clean energy.”
Kuby stated on her website that she believes in the competition of “new regulated companies into the market” that are committed to offering clean energy. She added that the commission exists to serve consumers.
“I would rename it the Arizona Consumer Commission,” Kuby said.
The three Republicans vying for spots on the Corporation Commission include the team of Nick Myers and Kevin Thompson. Myers is a small business owner and former software engineer, who served as a policy adviser for outgoing Commissioner Juston Olson, who is running for the U.S. Senate in the GOP primary. Thompson and Myers have stated their opposition to mandates and commitment to maintaining low rates.
Nick Myers
“Mandates are what is artificially driving up rates,” Myers said. “You know, if they have to go out and invest in the land and solar panels, or wind turbines or whatever, they’re going to be paying for that. And if the technology isn’t ready, if they’re going to be paying a premium for it, and that all gets rolled back into rates.”
Thompson also is a small business owner, who is serving his last term on Mesa’s City Council. He is a former Air Force combat veteran, who served as chairman of the National League of Cities’ Economic Development Committee and on the American Gas Association’s public policy committee.
Thompson also worked for Southwest Gas Holdings, Inc., in a position which he was fired from in 2014. He later sued the company, claiming he was discriminated against because of his age. The case was dismissed.
Kevin Thompson
Thompson and Myers say they strongly believe the powers of the Corporation Commission should be limited to that of an advisory body.
“You have five commissioners, so you only really need three for a majority,” Thompson said. “And my feeling is that three people shouldn’t be making energy policy for the entire state of Arizona. I think it’s time to put the policymaking into the Legislature so that the rural communities have a voice and so 90 individuals can openly debate.”
Running independently as a Republican is Kim Owens, who currently serves as a commissioner on the Arizona Power Authority. Before that, she served three terms on the Salt River Project Council and 20 years on the Tolleson Union High School District Governing Board.
Like Thompson and Myers, Owens said that she generally supports limiting the powers of the Corporation Commission. Owens is the only candidate of all five who has not accepted money from lobbyists. She also is the only candidate who does not support electric retail competition – a for-profit approach that allows out-of-state utilities to compete with big electric companies.
Kim Owens
Gov. Doug Ducey signed HB2101 in April, which reversed an older statute that allowed retail competition in the state. Proponents of the bill argued that eliminating competition addressed reliability issues and prevented blackouts like disruptions in Texas and California. Opponents argued that eliminating competition preserved the legal monopolies of utilities in place.
It is possible that the Corporation Commission could provide retailers entry into the state by adopting separate rules on competition. But Thompson and Myers indicated that they would not interfere with the Legislature’s decision.
Although all three Republicans are against eliminating the use of fossil fuels, they did support its inclusion as part of a broad portfolio. They oppose total dependence on renewable energy, saying it is unreliable.
“Getting rid of fossil fuels immediately is wishful thinking,” Owens said. “We don’t have the means to do it, we just don’t. Looking for the best sources of power that reduce emissions or provide the public with a sense of satisfaction towards something that they may desire in terms of clean air and clean water, that’s important. But it’s also important to understand that this is public safety. If you don’t have power and water, that’s a problem.”
Kuby rejected the premise that a whole dependence on renewable energy is more expensive than fossil fuels. She said solar energy was the only power source that did not fail during the Texas power outage that occurred during an ice storm in February of last year.
“If you look at the Texas example, guess which energy source didn’t fail? It was solar, it was the only power source that stayed within its expected production,” Kuby said. “Gas is 43% of the electricity that we generate in Arizona. And if we’ve learned anything from the war in Ukraine, and also from Texas, it’s that we shouldn’t be relying on energy sources that fluctuate so wildly with international events and with bad weather.”
Kennedy suggested that she and Kuby would be open to exploring the possibility of providing retailers entry into the state by setting separate rules on competition, while Thompson and Myers indicated that they would not interfere with the legislature’s decision.
It has been roughly 20 years since any Arizona legislators were first term-limited out of office.
In November 1992, more than 70 percent of Arizona voters approved of Proposition 107, which placed term limits on legislators and executive officers. Starting the next year, state legislators were prohibited from serving more than four consecutive terms in either chamber but could be reelected after one full term out of office. The governor and other officers were each limited to two four-year terms.
James Strickland
The implementation of term limits in Arizona and 20 (now 15) other states has allowed social scientists to measure limits’ effects on various aspects of state politics. What about lobbying? We should care about term limits’ effects on lobbying since advocates originally claimed that limits would reduce the influence of special interests in government, and because reformers have long expressed concerns about money in American politics generally. Are term limits truly the answer to these concerns?
In my research, which examines data spanning all 50 states and multiple decades, I find promising but complicated effects. Limits do not reduce the overall numbers or types of clients with registered lobbyists, but they change the nature of lobbying itself.
According to the lobby registration data, interest groups each hired between 11.3 and 13.2 percent fewer lobbyists overall after term limits were implemented, on average. The brunt of this effect was borne by multi-client contractors: contracts with multi-client lobbyists were reduced by about 10 percent. (This figure is based on analyses that control for the effects of other relevant variables.) There were few discernible differences in overall rates of multi-client lobbying across states before the implementation of term limits.
The effects of term limits appear even more pronounced for former legislators looking to lobby. In states with elevated levels of turnover among legislators, proportionally fewer former legislators become lobbyists. Moreover, those that do lobby have fewer clients overall than former legislators working as lobbyists in states with low turnover. For every 10 percentage points of turnover among legislators, former legislators acting as lobbyists in a state lost 1.2 clients each, on average. This effect is substantially greater in states with more legislative staffers who may also become lobbyists.
What explains these findings? Term limits are presumed to affect lobbying by increasing rates of turnover among incumbents. Turnover is bad for lobbyists who thrive on relationships. Often, it takes years to build relationships, which involves giving information and campaign contributions, and new lawmakers are suspicious of lobbyists. In the words of an infamous lobbyist in Congress, Jack Abramoff, “When I was a lobbyist, I hated the idea that a congressman who I had bought with years of contributions would decide to retire.” Abramoff was exceptional in his reliance on money to build relationships, but relationships matter: when the bosses of former Senate staffers retire from Congress, the former staffers who were lobbyists lose revenue. With high turnover induced by term limits, lobbyists cannot rely as much on relationships with incumbents to drum up business.
All these finding suggest but do not prove that term limits reduce the influence of special interests on government. Businesses are the most likely (among all interests) to hire multi-client contractors and former legislators to lobby. Former members of Congress help proposals advance through committees, and are the most expensive lobbyists in Washington, but it is unknown if state legislators are similarly effective and expensive. Three Phoenix-based lobbyists with whom I recently spoke indicated that former legislators are not effective lobbyists due to their limited, partisan appeal in the legislature.
There are also other methods to address the influence of money in politics, including implementing campaign finance and lobby transparency laws, and using smaller legislative districts. Moreover, increasing turnover can be accomplished by more radical means, such as paying legislators less (but this option could backfire).
In general, term limits have promise for changing the nature of lobbying in state capitols for the better. Multi-client and revolving-door lobbying are not necessarily bad, but the presence of any lobbyists who serve as gatekeepers raises questions over representation. Gatekeeping enables the wealthiest interests to achieve influence via expensive lobbyists. At the same time, however, limits have other, less desirable effects. It is worth considering what other reforms may help improve representation in Arizona and other states.
James M. Strickland is an assistant professor in the School of Politics and Global Studies at Arizona State University. He received his PhD in political science from the University of Michigan in 2019.
Attorney General Mark Brnovich speaks at the 2020 Converge Tech Summit at the Waste Management Phoenix Open. (Photo by Gage Skidmore/Flickr)
The Arizona Board of Regents is asking that Attorney General Mark Brnovich be investigated and disciplined by the agency that regulates lawyers.
In a complaint obtained by Capitol Media Services, board Chairman Larry Penley accused Brnovich, who strictly speaking is the legal counsel for the board and the universities, of actively criticizing and actually filing lawsuits against them.
All that, Penley is telling the State Bar of Arizona, violates a series of rules that govern the ethical conduct of attorneys.
That most immediately starts an investigation which could result in anything from no action through a reprimand or even a suspension or revocation of his ability to practice law. And if those last options were the outcome, Brnovich would lose his job because the Arizona Constitution requires that the attorney general be a licensed attorney.
The complaint actually was filed last year but remained sealed under State Bar rules.
A copy was obtained by Capitol Media Services Monday after Brnovich disqualified himself earlier this month from arguing a case against the regents and Arizona State University based on the complaint.
Penley, in the complaint, said this isn’t just some isolated incident.
“Over the past two years, Brnovich has mounted a litigation and media campaign against the board and Arizona’s public universities,” Penley wrote, particularly Arizona State University.
“He has done so despite representing the Board of Regents and the universities in numerous pending lawsuits,” the complaint states. “And he has done so without seeking ABOR’s consent to the conflict and in fact over our repeated objections to his breach of his fundamental duty of loyalty.”
And Penley had specifics.
Consider the lawsuit Brnovich filed against the university system over what he contends is illegally high tuition.
Larry Penley
“He threatened to ‘unleash the dogs of war’ ” if ABOR did not succeed in getting the lawsuit thrown out, Penley said.
There also were what Penley called “mocking comments” in emails sent to ASU president Michael Crow and insults like calling board members “gimmicky yobs” and “ivory tower cake eaters.”
“Most recently, Mr. Brnovich has taken to radio and social media to demand, with no factual basis, that his own clients, ABOR and ASU, be held ‘accountable’ for their ‘reckless’ and ‘irresponsible’ handling of the COVID-19 pandemic,” Penley told the State Bar.
“He has falsely claimed that he talked to ABOR before making these accusations,” Penley continued. “And he insists that ABOR is not his client with respect to COVID-19 matters, even though his office is charged by statute with representing ABOR in any pandemic-related tort, employment or other covered risk management claims.”
A spokesman for Brnovich, who is running to be the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in 2022, said he is precluded from responding publicly to the State Bar complaint.
This also isn’t the first complaint against the attorney general. A similar complaint was filed last year by Secretary of State Katie Hobbs.
In that case, Hobbs said that the attorney general’s office had represented her agency, received confidential attorney-client communications and provided advice “and then withdrawn from representation and appeared in the same litigation on behalf of a different party asserting a position materially adverse to the secretary of state.”
That complaint is still pending.
Penley, in writing to the State Bar, said the board did not take action lightly.
“AG Brnovich’s threats and insults are beneath the dignity of his office and are blatant violations of the standards of civility and professionalism that apply to all Arizona lawyers,” he wrote. “His initiation and aggressive pursuit of two major lawsuits against ABOR has been and remains unethical.”
Penley said the board wants the State Bar to investigate “and take appropriate disciplinary action.”
The 22-page complaint — 110 pages with supporting documentation — is full of specifics of how the regents believe that Brnovich has violated his obligations to his client.
There are the two lawsuits.
One is the bid by Brnovich to have the method of setting tuition at the state’s three universities declared unconstitutional and violating constitutional requirements that instruction be “as nearly free as possible.” He charged that board members were acting illegally by essentially deciding first how much they want to charge and then justifying the amount later.
But courts ruled he had no right to sue.
Still pending is that claim that it was illegal for ASU and the regents to enter into a deal to build a new hotel and conference center.
“In both lawsuits, AG Brnovich is not only suing his own client, he is also flipping his position on the same issues that the AG’s office has previously defended ABOR on,” Penley wrote.
Then there has been the Covid outbreak.
Penley said that Brnovich made public statements last year “with utter disregard both for the truth and for the interests of the AG’s clients.”
For example, he said, Brnovich said “the regents keep insisting on doing things that are contrary to law” and that “they just kind of make it up as they go along.”
He also said that campus facilities should have been “closed sooner” and that “ASU needs to release more information to the public now.”
“If AG Brnovich genuinely thought there was a problem, he could, and should, have shared his concerns with his clients,” Penley wrote. In fact, he said, had Brnovich asked he would have learned that the universities are in contact with local, state and federal officials to get public health guidance, including regarding contact tracing, notification, self-isolation and self-quarantine.
“He may not, consistent with his professional obligations, blindside his clients with statements that undermine his clients’ ability to defend themselves in current and future matters,” Penley said. “It is difficult to imagine a more straight-forward violation of the duty of loyalty.”
More to the point, he said Brnovich did not obtain the consent of ABOR before filing suit.
“Rather, he sent ABOR’s counsel a letter explaining his position that as an elected official, he has ‘unique authority’ to disregard the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct,” Penley said.
“The board recognizes that AG Brnovich is a politician as well as the lawyer for the board, but his political ambitions provide no justification for his derogatory and harmful comments towards his clients,” he said.
Theoretically, Penley said, the attorney general’s office could set up a “screen” to separate the part that was suing the universities and the part that is supposed to be its lawyer. But Penley said that doesn’t do any good if Brnovich, as the head of the office, is busy insulting those clients, including in the attorney general’s own reelection ads in 2018.
“Because AG Brnovich’s statements go far beyond simply announcing the facts and theories of the litigation to attack the character and competence of ABOR and ASU, they can easily be used by plaintiffs in unrelated cases to undermine the credibility of the AG’s defense of ABOR in those cases,” he said.
Legislation signed by the governor earlier this month opens the door for community colleges to offer four-year degrees, but it’ll take time for colleges to decide what programs, if any,...
Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals
Sign In
Free Newsletter
