Judge Jon Thompson, the longest serving member on the Arizona Court of Appeals Division I, passed away early this morning. He just turned 65 this month.
The news was confirmed by Aaron Nash, a spokesman for the Arizona Supreme Court, but he said no other information – including the cause of death – was made available.
Thompson was appointed to the position in 1995 by Gov. Fife Symington.
He is survived by his wife of nearly 44 years, Paulene; their sons, Hans and Paul and their unofficially adopted daughter, Nina Holiday. As well as his mother Beatrice Ann Thompson; brothers Alan and Thomas; and five grandchildren, according to a statement from the Supreme Court.
Thompson was preceded in death by his father, William Alan Thompson and his sister, Ann Thompson Bergner.
Division One Chief Judge Peter Swann shared some words about his former colleague and bandmate.
“Judge Thompson was not only our most senior judge, he was also one of the longest-serving judges in Arizona at the time of his death, and he had an encyclopedic knowledge of the history of our court,” Swann said.
“I have counted Jon as a friend since 1995, and his loss will be felt by many for years to come. I know the court will never be quite the same.”
Before serving on the Court of Appeals, Thompson worked as a deputy county attorney in both Yuma and Coconino counties, he was a judge pro tem on the Coconino Superior Court for one year, and worked for the law firm Mangum, Wall, Stoops & Warden in Flagstaff from 1990-95.
Thompson began his career in Phoenix at a private firm after receiving his undergrad from Northern Arizona University and his Juris Doctor at the University of Colorado, where he graduated in 1979.
State support for students at Arizona’s three public universities has fallen by 53.8 percent since 2008, more than three times the national decline over the same period, according to a new report.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said the Arizona cuts were the most extreme example of a national trend that has seen a total reduction in state aid of nearly $9 billion over the 10 years, as states scrambled to close budget gaps caused by the recession.
Despite efforts by states in recent years to reverse the trend – including in Arizona, where state support per student rose 4.25 percent last year – the report’s authors said they worry that those increases are slowing down.
“The clear majority of states have been reinvesting and that has been a broad trend over the past few years,” said Michael Mitchell, a senior policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, in a call on the August 30 report.
“But there are indications that we can see that this reinvestment is trailing off and the amount of reinvestment that we’ve seen over the past few years just hasn’t been enough to make up for the drastic magnitude of cuts over the time period we’re looking at,” he said.
Those cuts average 16 percent per student nationally since 2008, the report said.
Arizona’s 53.8 percent reduction was largest in the nation, with Louisiana next-closest with a 44.9 percent reduction. In terms of an actual dollar reduction, however, Arizona’s per-student cut of $3,450 was fourth-highest, behind Louisiana, New Mexico and Alabama.
While the cuts have been partially offset by increases in federal aid – an average Pell grant grew 23 percent during the period – steady increases in tuition continue to make college unaffordable for many, according to the report.
“We have seen increases in federal student aid, but in states where tuition costs have increased rapidly those additional federal investments have not kept up with rising college costs,” Mitchell said. “The net cost of attendance has increased even for low-income students at four-year colleges.”
Vianney Careaga, student regent on the Arizona Board of Regents, said in an email that the report’s “findings do not surprise me, but rather echo similar findings in reports issued” by the regents.
Careaga and others pointed to recent efforts to improve the situation in Arizona. Those include the regents’ “50-50” plan, which aims to increase per-student aid for state residents from the 2015 level of 34 percent to a level of 50 percent – an improvement, but still well below the 2008 level of 72.2 percent.
Sarah Harper, a spokeswoman for the board, said in an emailed statement that the state budgeted $8 million toward that plan this year and $15 million next, adding that the regents are “grateful” for the support of the model by Gov. Doug Ducey and the Legislature.
Advocates also point to a law signed by the governor this year that they say will allow the state’s universities to fund up to $1 billion in infrastructure and research projects in coming years.
Rep. Paul Boyer (R-Phoenix)
The prime sponsor of that bill, Rep. Paul Boyer, R-Phoenix, said more support is needed, but the state is in a tough spot.
“We got here because of decisions the state made between fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2009, which brought about $4.7 billion in new spending,” said Boyer, the chairman of the House Education Committee. “We had ongoing permanent spending without an ongoing permanent revenue source.”
He said the state needs to have “taxation that is predictable” to increase higher education support. But education funding is a large part of the budget, Boyer said, making it a target for cuts.
(Note: This story comes from the Arizona Center for Investigative Reporting through a Creative Commons license. AZCIR is a nonprofit investigative newsroom.)
Over the past decade the ASU Foundation for a New American University, the nonprofit fundraising arm of Arizona State University, has brought in revenues upwards of $100 million per year and given more than $60 million in grants annually back to the university.
Incorporated in 1955, the foundation was envisioned as a way to support Arizona’s fastest-growing university. And throughout the years as ASU has grown, the foundation has become a crucial piece of university operations, offering support through a variety means including philanthropy, research funding and partnerships and investment.
In 2016, ASU Foundation was reorganized as a conglomerate of nonprofits known as ASU Enterprise Partners.
But while the foundation receives high marks from charity watchdog organizations for directing above-average portions of revenue to program services, experts in nonprofits say there are some oddities contained in ASU Foundation’s tax filings.
Sybil Francis
Following the publication of a 2008 report questioning whether Sybil Francis, the wife of ASU President Michael Crow, should have been employed by the foundation, Crow disappeared from the foundation’s list of board members in its tax filings for four of the next six years. Likewise, Francis no longer was reported as one of the organization’s highest-paid employees.
In subsequent years, Crow returned as a board member and Francis is again listed as receiving a salary.
In an emailed statement that a spokeswoman said could be attributed only to the ASU Foundation, the organization said Crow and Francis’ exclusion from the tax filings was inadvertent and blamed the errors on its accountant. Crow has been a voting board member since 2002, when he became president of Arizona State University, the foundation said in a written statement.
ASU Foundation has also spent exorbitantly on lobbying efforts, though it is unclear what changes in public policy they have sought. Public records indicate the organization has only recently hired lobbyists to represent it at the state Capitol, and its real-estate-investment subsidiary has a lobbyist to deal with matters in Tempe, where it is located.
The foundation said the money categorized as lobbying on federal tax forms wasn’t spent to directly influence elected officials, but was instead aimed at awareness campaigns intended to boost public support of education initiatives the foundation and ASU supported.
ASU Foundation officials would not agree to be interviewed on the record in response to the questions AZCIR had after reviewing the organization’s tax filings for the past decade.
Since 2012, ASU Foundation has paid Francis more than $830,000 for her work, but chosen to disclose her salary in an obscure section of the tax return that details payments to people with ties to board members instead of listing her among the organization’s highest-paid employees.
Eric Gorovitz, a principal attorney at Adler & Colvin, a San Francisco-based law firm that advises nonprofit organizations, characterized that as “odd,” and said it is concerning that the foundation would not be more explicit about the money it pays to the wife of the university president, who also sits on the board.
On the tax returns for the years 2012 to 2016, Francis is listed in a section near the end of the return that outlines business transactions with interested persons, and it is stated that her compensation is for employment. In all, she was paid $834,533 during that time.
Given that her annual compensation averages about $166,000, Gorovitz said she would likely be one of the top 20 highest paid employees or highest paid contractors, which are disclosed in a more prominent place near the beginning of the tax return.
“It might just be an optics problem,” Gorvitz said. “But I do get worried when they present it in this way.”
According to Francis’s LinkedIn profile, she is ASU Foundation’s director for strategic advancement, and has been an employee since 2002. ASU Foundation said Francis has been paid to be the executive director of Center for the Future of Arizona, a nonprofit founded by former ASU President Lattie Coor, since 2003.
However, Francis is not listed anywhere on the organization’s tax returns between 2010 and 2012. This coincides with both changes to IRS nonprofit reporting requirements in 2008 and to backlash ASU Foundation received in 2008 over Francis’ employment.
In 2008, a report by the Coalition for Justice at Great Western Erectors questioned whether Francis should be employed by the foundation because her husband served on the board of directors.
In its 2005-2006 tax return, ASU Foundation reported that Francis was being compensated $160,000 for working 65 hours a week at the foundation as a “senior adviser.”
The 65 hours a week was in spite of the fact that she was (and still is) the executive director for Center for the Future of Arizona. According to that organization’s tax returns during 2005 and 2006, she was being paid $114,000 for working “as required.”
Although Francis’s current biography listed on the Center for the Future of Arizona’s website states she “isengagedinallaspectsofthecenter’swork,” and her LinkedIn profile says she has been executive director of the organization since 2002, she has not been listed as a salaried employee in Center for the Future of Arizona’s tax returns since 2009.
In response to the 2008 report, ASU Foundation’s then-president and CEO, Johnnie Ray, told The Arizona Republic that Francis’ salary was justified because “spouses of all university presidents spend an enormous amount of time promoting the university’s interests.”
“There are some universities that choose to pay spouses of presidents as employees and some who do not,” Ray told theRepublic. “We are one who chooses to pay because we believe that service has a huge return on that investment.”
About two months after the controversy from the Coalition for Justice at Great Western Erectors report and the subsequent media coverage, ASU Foundation filed its tax return for 2006-07. Crow was no longer listed as a member of the board of directors and Francis, who was previously mentioned among the highest paid employees, was also absent.
Michael Crow
For the next two years, Crow and Francis were listed in the tax returns with Crow on the board and Francis as working 40 hours a week as a “special advisor,” receiving about $175,000 in compensation. She was one of the organization’s five highest-paid employees.
But Crow and Francis disappeared from the reports again for two years, beginning in 2009-10. They then both reappeared in the ASU Foundation’s 2012-13 filing, with Crow again listed on the board of directors, but Francis now listed under a section that outlines business with interested persons instead of as a top-paid employee. Both have been in the same sections ever since.
In a written statement, ASU Foundation said it believes that its organizational materials and tax forms have been clear about the roles played by Crow and Francis, though it conceded that both were erroneously missing from some tax filings.
“In cases where past IRS Form 990s do not describe these roles in a consistent manner, the organization will work with its accounting team to publicly disclose related information and amend it where applicable,” the organization said.
ASU Foundation did not answer specific questions relating to the errors, the changes in how Francis’ employment was disclosed or why the explanation for Francis’ salary was different in 2008 than it is now.
AZCIR’s review of ASU Foundation’s tax filings also found that its lobbying expenses are several times greater than those made by other public university foundations and there are few records indicating who had been hired to lobby during that period, who the target of the influence was and on what matters.
In the last five years, ASU Foundation has spent nearly $1.4 million on lobbying activities, topping out at $424,780 in 2015-2016.
By law, that it is perfectly justifiable, said Gorovitz, the San Francisco attorney who advises nonprofits, because it is allowed to spend up to $1 million on lobbying annually.
On its tax returns, ASU Foundation states that it engages in lobbying practices that “contribute to public communication and advocacy activities that support higher education in Arizona and the need for adequate funding to provide excellent educational opportunities for Arizona residents.”
However, there are scant records indicating who ASU Foundation paid to lobby on its behalf, who was lobbied and what was lobbied for.
Federal lobbying records maintained by the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives show that ASU Foundation has not lobbied in Congress. State records show that ASU Foundation did not begin lobbying state legislators until February of this year, when it hired the public affairs firm Veridus to represent it at the State Capitol.
Veridus partner Wendy Briggs would not comment on her firm’s work and referred all questions to the ASU Foundation. However, legislative records show that the only bill ASU Enterprise Partners took a position on, via Briggs, was a budget bill that provided the universities with infrastructure funding.
And lobbyingrecordsinTempe, where ASU Foundation is located, show that Phoenix law firm Gammage & Burnham has represented the foundation’s real estate affiliate, University Realty, since at least the beginning of this year, when the city began requiring lobbyists to register and disclose their clients.
Gammage & Burnham attorney Manjula Vaz said she represents University Realty on land use matters before the Tempe City Council. She said the firm only recently began representing the organization before the Tempe City Council, though Gammage & Burnham has served as University Realty’s real estate attorneys for several years.
The foundation’s lobbying activities also stand in stark contrast to other university foundations.
In 2015-16, ASU Foundation received more than $128 million in revenue and spent nearly $424,780 on lobbying activities. By comparison Northern Arizona University’s foundation spent nothing on lobbying during that period and the University of Arizona Foundation, which also received more than $110 million in revenue, spent only $79,200 on lobbying.
According to its tax filing, The University of Arizona Foundation’s lobbying efforts involved contributing $75,000 to the ballot campaign supporting Proposition 123 in 2016. The measure, which was approved by voters a year ago, increases K-12 education funding for the next decade.
Furthermore, over the five years in which ASU Foundation spent nearly $1.4 million on lobbying activities, the University of Arizona Foundation spent less than $300,000.
Compared to foundations for other public universities with comparable enrollment figures, ASU Foundation’s lobbying efforts are also on the high end, though the amount spent on lobbying by those foundations varies widely.
Of the foundations representing the five largest public universities in the country, only Florida International University, with a little less than $2 million, spent more on lobbying activities from 2010-2015.
During that period the ASU Foundation spent spent $969,482 on lobbying activities, which is more than the foundations representing Ohio State University, the University of Florida, Texas A&M University, and the University of Central Florida spent on lobbying activities combined. Those foundations combined spent $856,760 on lobbying activities during those five years.
ASU Foundation said its lobbying expenses are actually public education efforts on policy issues, which, under federal tax rules, are classified as lobbying expenses.
The organization “engages advocacy tools to increase understanding, awareness and support for its mission,” including to build support for public transportation between ASU’s metro Phoenix campuses, for policies that would better prepare Arizona students for college and for public investment in Arizona universities.
Out-of-state students who paid full tuition at state universities won’t be getting a refund.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Teresa Sanders on Tuesday threw out the lawsuit filed earlier this year by three students from other states. They claimed that since the universities were at the time letting “dreamers” pay in-state tuition meant they, too – and every other out-of-state student – were entitled to the same discount.
Sanders said even if that is true – a conclusion she never reached – it does not matter. Sanders said individuals who believe they were harmed by the failure of the Board of Regents to follow a federal law the right to file individual lawsuits.
But attorney Lance Entrekin who represents the students said his lawsuit is not based on seeking financial recovery under the federal law. He said it is based on the theory that the regents, having violated that federal law, have breached their contract with the out-of-state students who now are entitled to a refund.
And Entrekin said that, if nothing else, the universities were unjustly enriched by charging his clients and others the full out-of-state tuition when the federal law said they were entitled to pay in-state tuition.
He has vowed an appeal.
For the time being, the ruling, unless overturned, removes a large financial cloud from the state’s three universities. Had the judge let the suit go forward and found the tuition policy illegal, the schools could have potentially been on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars in refunds.
At the heart of the issue is the 1996 Welfare Reform Act.
One provision spells out that people who are not in this country legally are ineligible for “any postsecondary education benefit” simply because they also happen to reside in the state.
But Congress also put in an escape clause of sorts for states: They could choose to provide discounted college but only if they made the same discounts available to all U.S. citizens.
All this became an issue because the Arizona Board of Regents voted in 2015 to provide in-state tuition to those in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Established years earlier by an executive order by President Obama, it allows those who came to this country illegally as children to remain without fear of deportation and the ability to work legally.
But in 2017 the state Court of Appeals, ruling in a case involving Maricopa County Community Colleges, said the policy of providing in-state tuition to DACA recipients violated both state and federal law.
The Board of Regents, despite the ruling, maintained the tuition policy for another year, until the Arizona Supreme Court upheld the appellate court ruling.
Entrekin argued that the regents were put on notice in that 2017 appellate ruling which specifically cited the 1996 federal law. But he said the universities continued to charge his clients and other out-of-state students the full tuition for the 2017-2018 school year.
That difference is significant.
When Entrekin sued, the regents had set resident undergraduate tuition for new students at the University of Arizona at $12,228, versus $35,658 for students from other states.
The difference is not quite as great at Arizona State University, $10,792 for resident undergrads compared to $27,372 for nonresidents. And Northern Arizona University set tuition at $11,059 for residents and $24,841 for others.
Entrekin sought a refund for California resident Mikayla Foss and Michigan resident Abigail Garbarino who were attending ASU and Eleanor Wiersma from Maryland, who was going to UofA. And he asked Sanders to allow the case to proceed as a class action, meaning any ruling would affect all others who Entrekin contends were overcharged.
Sanders, however, said the law’s sole purpose is to put a restriction on the state and universities extending benefits to those not here legally.
“It does not provide an entitlement to U.S. citizens,” she wrote. “Nor does it prohibit educational institutions from classifying non-resident students as such, or from collecting non-resident tuition from them.”
Entrekin, however, said that universities, in entering into a contract with the students to charge them out-of-state tuition, violated federal law.
He did not dispute that the students did get what they bargained for: an education at a price they knew up front. But Entrekin said that does not matter.
“You cannot enforce a contractual provision that is illegal,” he said.
Northern Arizona University’s Young Democrats, College Republicans and several other student organizations called for university President Rita Cheng’s resignation Thursday after a state audit revealed in October that she used more than $40,000 from the university for travel expenses without proper documentation.
Aside from Cheng’s improper documentation of university funds, the students cited in a letter how their president has created a toxic work and learning environment, protected her own interests, increased tuition, reduced funding for counseling and health services and has displayed a disrespectful attitude toward faculty.
“Our grievances with her are not new,” Calli Jones, NAU Young Democrats president, said, explaining how the club did surface-level research in order to find a list of sources for their letter.
Their letter has been shared on social media over 70 times and has widespread support on NAU’s campus, Jones and NAU College Republicans President Robert Bean said.
Rita Cheng
But Kimberly Ott, Assistant to the President for Executive Communication and Media Relations, said Friday the letter has not been sent to Cheng directly.
“We are disappointed that none of the groups . . . listed on the letter, who represent a collective membership of approximately 90 of the more than 30,000 enrolled students of NAU, asked to meet with President Cheng to air their views and engage in a dialogue,” Ott wrote.
Young Democrats and College Republicans joined together to publish the student body’s grievances, making the campaign to get Cheng to step down bipartisan and widespread on NAU’s campus.
The partnership between the clubs was “nothing dramatic,” Jones said.
“We’re all students and we are all suffering,” she said.
The partnership is the university’s first, but won’t be the last, Jones and Bean said.
“I want our campus and other campuses to know that two sides can come together on things that are wrong,” Bean said.
NAU students have seen discrepancies in Cheng’s leadership throughout this entire year, when “tuition was raised with no benefits for us,” Jones said.
The state audit, released in October, reported that the lack of documentation of funds broke rules at both a university and state level which put public funds at risk for misuse, in turn making students question Cheng’s ability to run the university.
“It’s the misuse of funds” that hurts students the most, Bean said.
The results of the audit have reached a state-wide level too, prompting Rep. Walter Blackman, R-Snowflake, to propose legislation that would require public employees and officials to pay the difference in airfare upgrades if they accumulate one.
Bean explained that it’s not just the “misuse of funds” for travel expenses but the “extravagant expenses” elsewhere around NAU’s campus. Students, like Bean, are upset that Cheng’s focus on new university developments, like a new sports complex, without complete funding leaves the remainder of payments on students and their families.
In response to the audit’s conclusions, Bjorn Flugstad, NAU’s Vice President for Finance, Institutional Planning and Analysis, wrote that the university “appreciated the guidance […] and the opportunity this audit provided to examine and improve documentation practices.”
Ott wrote in an email that the conclusions of the audit “revealed a need for training to strengthen business processes and practices to ensure that transactions related to travel are properly documented,” which the university is doing.
Student leaders at NAU said they would be surprised if Cheng decided to resign, but they hope that their letter is an effective message to the Arizona Board of Regents not to renew her contract in 2022, Jones said.
A graduate residency program is the latest effort to chip away at state’s teacher shortage and combat high turnover.
The Arizona Department of Education awarded Northern Arizona University’s Arizona K12 Center a $5 million grant to design and launch the Arizona Teacher Residency, with the first students to start in summer 2022. The funds come from Covid relief dollars — Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief money.
Modeled after medical residencies, the Arizona Teacher Residency program will try to give new teachers the support needed to stay in the profession.
Kathy Wiebke, director of the K12 Center, has wanted to launch a residency program for about a decade.
“This is not a quick fix to Arizona’s teacher shortage, but it is the right step. Quick fixes rarely have a lasting impact,” Wiebke said during a press conference announcing the new program Monday.
All in all, residency students are committing to five years. The program itself is two years: a two-week summer institute, then a year of apprenticeship in a school under a supervising teacher, then a year in the program as the head teacher in a classroom. During that time, residents are also completing coursework for a master’s degree, which will be “highly subsidized.”
After that, program graduates agree to work in the partner district for three years.
Residents also receive a living stipend during the first year and a salary from their school district during the second.
Wiebke said residency graduates will continue to receive professional support from the Arizona K12 Center. Program supporters pointed to research from Learning Policy Institute that found 70 to 80% of teachers who go through a residency program are still in the classroom after five years.
State Superintendent Kathy Hoffman said the program would not compete with existing programs; it’s not exclusive to those who majored in education in college. Hoffman said it would target a different group of people: college graduates who didn’t major in education, people looking to switch careers and those looking to re-enter the job market.
“The severity of our teacher shortage requires multiple strategies,” Hoffman said. “Now our state has another tool in its toolbox to address this crisis.”
The program will particularly aim to attract teachers for harder to staff positions, such as special education and STEM teachers, Hoffman said. Initial residencies will be in urban Title I elementary schools in the Phoenix area, though Hoffman said there were plans to pilot it in more rural parts of the state and in high schools.
NAU President José Luis Cruz Rivera said the program was an opportunity to bring in more teachers who “reflect and understand the students they serve.”
“(That includes) more men and people of color, helping to further diversify the teaching profession,” Cruz Rivera said.
Arizona Teacher Residency Director Victoria Theisen-Homer’s work looking at the teacher shortage in Arizona is a basis for the program. Her 2021 report “A Teacher Chasm in the Grand Canyon State” looks at the shortage and how a residency program can address its challenges.
Dreamers at the state’s three universities will continue paying the same tuition as other Arizona residents, at least for the time being.
The Board of Regents voted Thursday to continue its policy of interpreting Arizona law to say that those in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals are entitled to the same legal – and financial – considerations as anyone else who meets state residency requirements.
Thursday’s vote comes a week after the Arizona Court of Appeals concluded that a similar policy by the Maricopa community colleges violates Proposition 300, a 2006 voter-approved law that says those not in the country legally are not entitled to in-state tuition. The same law prohibits tuition waivers, scholarships or any other aid funded with public dollars.
Bill Ridenour
But regents Chairman Bill Ridenour noted that the Maricopa board voted Tuesday to appeal that ruling to the Arizona Supreme Court. Ridenour, who called the appellate court decision a “difficult lose” for DACA recipients, said he wants to wait to see what the state’s high court decides before making any policy changes.
Ridenour also noted that students begin returning to campuses for the fall semester in August.
“We are very appreciative of the need for some kind of certainty for those students with our universities,” he said. Ridenour said there is no reason that the current tuition policy, adopted two years ago, should be scrapped unless and until there’s a final Supreme Court ruling.
Only regent Jay Heiler voted against keeping tuition for dreamers at the in-state rate.
“We have a Court of Appeals decision founded largely in state law as enacted by the voters,” he said. “I feel this board needs to honor that.”
Jay Heiler
But Heiler does not want to require DACA recipients – there are less than 300 in the state university system – to pay the full out-of-state rate.
He pointed out that the board already has a policy on the books allowing students who graduate from Arizona high schools but do not meet other residency requirements to pay a “differentiated rate.”
In essence, this is designed to cover the actual costs of educating students, avoiding the prohibition against subsidized tuition in Proposition 300. The regents have set that rate at 150 percent of in-state tuition.
It is not being used by DACA recipients because the regents decided to offer in-state tuition after a trial judge ruled in favor of the policy adopted by Maricopa County colleges.
Heiler found himself in the minority as other regents said they were content to leave the tuition for dreamers where it is right now.
“I believe that, until we have settled law that is contrary to our ability to do this, that it’s the right thing for us to continue to offer the in-state tuition,” said Rick Myers.
Regent Ron Shoopman agreed.
“One of the things this board strongly believes is that we want to provide access and as low a possible tuition as possible within the confines of the reality that we find ourselves, so all students who attend the universities and especially those that graduate have better futures guaranteed,” he said. “We want that for all our young people.”
And Ram Krishna said there’s another fact to consider.
He pointed out that both the University of Arizona and Northern Arizona University have programs that are designed to guarantee incoming students that their tuition will remain unchanged for the four years to get an undergraduate degree.
“We need to comply with that,” Krishna said.
Arizona State University has no such policy but has promised to limit year-over-year increases.
Ridenour, who is an attorney, said after Thursday’s meeting he is making no predictions on what the Supreme Court will conclude.
“I think it will be well briefed,” he said. Ridenour said he expects input not only from the parties involved — the Maricopa colleges, which implemented the policy, and Attorney General’s Office, which challenged it — but also others who have an interest in the outcome.
“Obviously, there’s a lot of politics involved,” he said. “There’s laws involved.”
He agreed with Heiler on one key point: The best outcome would be for the federal government to clarify the status of DACA recipients.
It was the Obama administration that enacted the DACA program in 2012, entitling those who arrived in this country illegally as children to remain and to work.
But Brnovich argued – and the appellate court agreed – that decision by the administration not to deport dreamers did not give them legal immigration status, making them ineligible for in-state tuition.
During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump vowed to rescind DACA on his first day in office. But now, five months later, the program not only remains but his administration has said it continues to study what to do next.
There are those, however, who are pressuring the Trump administration to live up to that promise.
In a letter Thursday to the U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the attorneys general from 10 states urged that the DACA be phased out because it was enacted “without any statutory authorization from Congress.”
Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich was not among those who signed the letter. But Brnovich has argued in court documents seeking to deny driver’s licenses to dreamers that there is no legal authority for DACA.
People use a footbridge over University Avenue on the campus of Arizona State University on Tuesday, Sept. 1, 2020, in Tempe, Ariz. (AP Photo/Matt York)
Gov. Doug Ducey has forbade public universities and community colleges from requiring that students and staff wear masks and get tested regularly for Covid.
In an executive order Tuesday, the governor specifically lashed out at the policy announced by Arizona State University requiring that students be vaccinated before returning to class in the fall.
That policy is not absolute. But Ducey pointed out it says those who are not inoculated or choose not to share that information “will be subject to invasive restrictions such as daily health checks, twice weekly testing and mandated mask wearing.”
That, the governor said, is unacceptable.
“No person should be compelled to disclose to a governmental entity as a condition of attending classes, receiving services or participating in activities without a demonstrated compelling need,” he wrote in his executive order.
He acknowledged that Covid is “highly contagious.” But he said that it does not have the kind of transmission characteristics that would meet requirements for mandated vaccines.
And Ducey said while getting one of the vaccines that has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration under its Emergency Use Authorization is “strongly encouraged, it is not and will not be mandated by the state of Arizona.”
Ducey’s new order affects more than ASU.
The University of Arizona has had a virtually identical policy, allowing non-vaccinated students on campus but only if they wear masks and get tested once a week.
And Northern Arizona University has required that everyone on campus wear a mask and maintain at least six feet of physical distancing.
But none of the schools is planning to contest Ducey’s edict.
“We will comply with the governor’s executive order and continue to monitor our public health conditions to help ensure the health and well-being of our students, faculty and staff,” said Pam Scott, a UA vice president.
ASU also won’t fight the order despite comments earlier in the day by President Michael Crow defending the school’s policy as providing freedom of choice.
“So we expect vaccinations,” he said on KTAR radio before the governor’s edict. And for those who don’t, Crow said the school expects students to follow the guidelines laid out by the federal Centers for Disease Prevention and Control, “which are quite clear.”
The governor’s order also extends to all community colleges, overriding any mask mandates and testing requirements they have in place for non-vaccinated students. And he is working with Sen. T.J. Shope, R-Coolidge, who first raised alarm about the ASU policy, to codify the executive order into statute.
“The vaccine works, and we encourage Arizonans to take it,” Ducey said in prepared remarks. “But it is a choice and we need to keep it that way.”
In a separate Twitter post, the governor called the policies “social engineering at its worst.”
Health policy should be based on science, not virtue signaling,” the governor wrote, the practice of publicly expressing opinions to communicate the good character of the speaker.
That’s the same verbiage being used nationally by some elements of the Republican Party to eliminate any kinds of mask mandates. And it isn’t Ducey’s first foray into the battle.
In March, he barred local governments from imposing mask mandates except in public buildings and on mass transit.
In April, he lifted the mask mandate that had existed for public schools. But in that case, he left the decision to local school officials — something that his new executive order says s is not an option for colleges and universities.
“Public education is a public right, and taxpayers are paying for it,” the governor said in a prepared statement with his new order.
“We need to make our public universities available for students to return to learning,” he continued. “They have already missed out on too much learning.”
While none of the colleges actually mandates that students, staff or visitors be vaccinated, just the restrictions on those who are not inoculated was too much for not just the governor but for several legislators.
It was Shope, an ASU graduate himself, who first raised the issue on Monday.
He cited a note to new students for the fall semester from Joanne Vogel, vice president of student services. That laid out the requirement for unvaccinated students or those who don’t share inoculation information to get tested twice a week, submit a daily health check and wear face covers in all indoor and outdoor spaces on ASU campuses.
Shope told Capitol Media Services he realizes that nothing in this policy — or the ones at the other two universities — actually mandates that people get vaccinated. But he said the additional requirements imposed on those not vaccinated are improper.
“The twice-weekly testing, I feel that’s a bit onerous for folks that are going to school,” Shope said. “We need to get to a point here where we recognize, especially the student population that’s there, is probably the least susceptible to succumbing to this.”
Shope brushed aside questions of whether young people, even though they’re less likely to get seriously ill, can still be carriers who can spread the disease to those who are more vulnerable.
“I think the science is still out,” he said.
But ASU spokeswoman Katie Paquet said the idea of halting the spread — and not just among other students and staff — was precisely one of the reasons the university adopted the policy. She said there is a belief that the school needs to protect the community at large.
“We are living in a state where, what, about half the population is vaccinated, maybe not quite there yet?” Paquet said.
In fact, the most recent number is 48.1%. And in Maricopa County, where the campuses are located, it’s just 32.8%.
“We know that our students are not confined to the borders of ASU,” she continued. “They live and they go out into the broader community so we wanted to make sure that we’re taking steps to protect the unvaccinated.”
Holly Jensen defended the similar policy at the University of Arizona, saying it, too, closely tracks with the CDC recommendations.
It requires not just testing but also says that non-vaccinated individuals must wear face coverings in all classrooms and other group instructional settings. Masks also are requiring outdoor “where continuous physical distancing of at least six feet is difficult or impossible to maintain.”
Former state Health Director Will Humble said the governor should not have overridden policies at the universities.
“What it does is provide an incentive for those students that haven’t been vaccinated yet to do it,” said Humble, now executive director of the Arizona Public Health Association. “Because if they do get vaccinated, the fall semester will be less of a pain because they have certain things that they won’t have to comply with.”
And Humble said he does not view the policy as improper government coercion.
“Your stick is my carrot,” he responded. Humble said it also helps schools by having one set of rules to manage the risk among those who are vaccinated and separate rules for those who are not.
“It’s pure political posturing for a future Republican primary,” Humble said, referring to speculation that Ducey has his eye on national office after he is no longer governor.
Shope said he doesn’t see why there is a need for special treatment of students who won’t get vaccinated against Covid.
“We don’t test for many things that are contagious, especially in a dorm setting,” he said.
“I’m not sure where we draw the line at on this,” Shope continued. “And I think that’s what the concern is for me, especially on a twice-weekly (basis).”
There are exceptions in Ducey’s order.
Students who are participating in clinical studies at hospitals, nursing homes and similar facilities can be required to provide proof of vaccination and be subject to regular screening.
It also allows universities to require testing if there is a “significant” outbreak of the virus in student housing that poses a risk to students or staff. But even then, the school must first get approval from the Department of Health Services.
Other GOP legislators also have weighed in.
Sen. Warren Petersen, R-Gilbert, said that telling students to get vaccinated or wear a mask and get tested twice a week “is not really a choice.”
“Who would do that?” he told Capitol Media Services, calling it a “Hobson’s choice” between two unacceptable alternatives.
Rep. Travis Grantham, R-Gilbert, specifically called the ASU policy “blatantly discriminatory” and “troubling.”
“It’s important that this tyrannical policy must not prevent any Arizonan from accessing our state university system,” he said.
A cyclist crosses an intersection on the campus of Arizona State University on Tuesday, Sept. 1, 2020, in Tempe, Ariz. (AP Photo/Matt York)
Gov. Doug Ducey is moving to quash requirements by state universities that unvaccinated students must wear masks and get tested regularly for Covid.
In a series of Twitter posts, the governor specifically blasted the policy of Arizona State University which says that unvaccinated students must submit a daily health check, participate in weekly testing and wear face coverings indoor or outdoors unless otherwise directed.
“The vaccine works,” the governor said.
“But the vaccine is a choice,” calling the policy “social engineering at its worst,” he continued. “Health policy should be based on science, not virtue signaling.”
More to the point, Ducey said he will issue an executive order “that will ensure this excessive policy is never enforced.”
It isn’t just at ASU.
Holly Jensen at the University of Arizona said her school has a virtually identical policy, allowing non-vaccinated students on campus but only if they wear masks and get regularly tested.
And Northern Arizona University, while having no specific policy on vaccinations, requires that everyone on campus wear a mask and maintain at least six feet of physical distancing.
While none of the colleges actually mandates that students, staff or visitors be vaccinated, just the restrictions on those who are not was too much for not just the governor but for several legislators.
It was Sen. T.J. Shope, R-Coolidge, an ASU graduate himself, who first raised the issue on Monday, citing a note to new students for the fall semester from Joanne Vogel, vice president of student services. That laid out the requirement for unvaccinated students or those who don’t share inoculation information to get tested twice a week, submit a daily health check and wear face covers in all indoor and outdoor spaces on ASU campuses.
Shope told Capitol Media Services he realizes that nothing in this policy — or the ones at the other two universities — mandates that people get vaccinated. But he said the additional requirements imposed on those not vaccinated is improper.
“The twice-weekly testing, I feel that’s a bit onerous for folks that are going to school,” Shope said. “We need to get to a point here where we recognize, especially the student population that’s there, is probably the least susceptible to succumbing to this.”
Shope brushed aside questions of whether young people, even though they’re less likely to get seriously ill, can still be carriers who can spread the disease to those who are more vulnerable.
“I think the science is still out,” he said.
But ASU spokeswoman Katie Paquet said the idea of halting the spread — and not just among other students and staff — was precisely one of the reasons the university adopted the policy. She said there is a belief that the school needs to protect the community at large.
“We are living in a state where, what, about half the population is vaccinated, maybe not quite there yet?” Paquet said.
“We know that our students are not confined to the borders of ASU,” she continued. “They live and they go out into the broader community so we wanted to make sure that we’re taking steps to protect the unvaccinated.”
Jensen defended the similar policy at the University of Arizona, saying it closely tracks with the recommendations of the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control.
It requires not just testing but also says that non-vaccinated individuals must wear face coverings in all classrooms and other group instructional settings. Masks also are required outdoor “where continuous physical distancing of at least six feet is difficult or impossible to maintain.”
All this proved too much for Ducey.
“Public education is a public right, and taxpayers are paying for it,” he said in his series of Twitter posts.
“We need to make our public universities available for students to return to learning,” the governor continued. “In Arizona, we are going to have students in classrooms learning.”
In this photo taken Jan. 13, 2020, Wally Covington stands among trees in an experimental forest restoration area near Flagstaff, Arizona. Covington retired in late January as executive director of Northern Arizona University’s Ecological Restoration Institute, which he founded. (Scott Buffon/Arizona Daily Sun via AP)
A Northern Arizona University forestry expert who was ahead of his time in urging communities across the West to thin dense stands of trees and set fire to the landscape as a way to ward off catastrophic wildfires has retired from his position at the school.
Members of Congress, state legislators, the U.S. Forest Service and countless others looked to Wally Covington for science-based advice on how to restore forests to a condition when natural fires regularly would burn the undergrowth and small trees.
Covington retired in late January as executive director of NAU’s Ecological Restoration Institute, which he founded, after about 45 years at the school. He started there as an assistant professor of forestry.
Covington, 73, told the Arizona Daily Sun that he plans to spend time in Flagstaff and in Oklahoma still working on forest restoration. He also hopes to work in South America and with Native American fire crews, he said.
Covington was on track to practice medicine after getting a bachelor’s degree but ditched the plan after a doctor told him people also need help enjoying life and to find his passion, he said. He graduated from Yale University with a doctorate from the forestry program.
The influence of medicine wasn’t lost on Covington. He has referred to western forests as a “patient” in need of saving and himself as an ecosystem health practitioner.
He was dismissed as an alarmist early on in his career when he warned that if forests were left untreated, wildfires could chew through hundreds of thousands of acres with small fires climbing into the treetops. It has happened in many places across the U.S. West.
“It may not be in your backyard yet, but it will be,” Covington said. “And that’s what I’m trying to get people to see.”
Historically, forests were relatively thin, with grass and wildflowers growing beneath the tree canopy. Covington pored over maps and photos, using the condition of the forest before settlers came in as a baseline model. Good science must be the starting point for restoration, he said.
Others argued that more information was needed before any work could be done and that Covington’s approach could open up forests to logging. But he advocated for quick action and funding to protect habitat for endangered and threatened species, water resources, human life and property.
A truce came in a contentious debate over tree-cutting with a consensus to preserve trees with 16-inch (41-centimeter) diameter trunks or larger.
“In the policy world you take barbs. You take spears,” said Diane Vosick, director of policy and partnerships at the Ecological Restoration Institute. “And a lot of people just don’t want to do that. He’s taken spears from multiple sides, but he’s been willing to continue to hold the line on what needs to happen.”
Covington and his colleagues at NAU designed experiments that paved the way for large-scale projects, like the Four Forest Restoration Initiative in Arizona — the largest project of its kind in the U.S. Forest Service. It eventually will cover 3,750 square miles along a prominent line of cliffs that divides Arizona’s high country from the desert.
Covington testified before Congress and served on an Arizona legislative advisory committee to recommend and implement policies on forest conditions.
He said the Ecological Restoration Institute will need a leader who will stay ahead of the curve, taking on questions about wildfires and forest ecology in the face of climate change — and listening to various points of view.
Pete Fulé, one of Covington’s former students, said he appreciated Covington’s constant search for new ideas.
“The work that Wally has done is extremely valuable to try to help us position ourselves, but it would not be wise to think that now the problem is solved, because it’s not,” Fulé said.
After months of deliberation, state universities are aiming to admit 200 students in the fall 2017 semester to a teacher-training program with free tuition.
Eileen Klein
The president of the Arizona Board of Regents, Eileen Klein, said this academic year would be considered a “pilot year” for the program, called the Arizona Teacher Academy. She said each university has individual expectations for the program, but collectively, the universities are looking for candidates “who are going to be dedicated to innovative and impactful teaching, particularly in Arizona.”
The academy is intended to fill vacant teaching positions that have plagued the state for years.
In January, Gov. Doug Ducey called on Arizona’s public universities in his State of the State speech to reduce, if not completely waive, tuition for students pursuing teaching degrees if they committed to teaching in some of Arizona’s high-need schools. He asked the public universities, community colleges and education leaders alike, to band together to create an Arizona Teacher Academy.
The dean of Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College at Arizona State University, Carole Basile, said that while the official blueprint for the program is not yet complete, she expects the academy to develop innovative, dedicated teachers.
Basile said ASU does not yet know who will be selected for the academy this August. However, she did say that general success markers in college, like GPA, and financial need, would be considered when choosing the Teacher Academy’s students.
This fall ASU is primarily looking to enroll seniors in the academy, but Basile said she hopes the program will expand to younger students eventually.
Students who are accepted to the academy will have some, if not all, of their student debt alleviated. Basile said by reducing or eliminating future teachers’ debt, it allows new teachers to “really focus on being a creative educator, and not have to worry about working that second job to pay their student debt.”
Carole Basile
Basile said she believes that reduced student debt could both entice young Arizonans to become teachers, and encourage them to stay in the profession longer.
Representatives with the University of Arizona and Northern Arizona University did not immediately respond to requests for comment for this story.
As of now, the bulk of the academy’s financial burden falls on the shoulders of the universities themselves. Basile said ASU intends on using reallocated scholarship funds to pay for the academy.
When a student accepts a position in the academy, their tuition debt is alleviated in exchange for a four-year commitment to teaching in an Arizona school, especially high-need schools in rural and urban areas.
Klein said that if students were to take advantage of the academy, and then fail to teach in the state following their graduation, they would be required to pay back the money they were given.
Students enrolled in the Teacher Academy will also have the opportunity to be mentored by experienced teachers. Basile said the program would ideally become “very experiential,” which would more adequately prepare future teachers for the tribulations they will face in the classroom.
Klein said higher education leaders are in final discussions with Ducey, and she looks forward to visit the Legislature next year to ensure the state takes strides to contribute to, and offset the cost of, the Arizona Teacher Academy.
In the meantime, Klein said the universities should be applauded for stepping up to foot the cost of this academy on their own. Basile said that while the average tuition debt for a recently graduated teacher is $22,000, ASU is “very committed to making” the academy happen, regardless of the source of its funding.
However, Basile also said that the academy is merely a “short-term fix for a much bigger education workforce” problem. She hopes the academy will attract the best and brightest future teachers to the education profession for now, but that the way society looks at the career will change.
Basile said leaders in education need to start thinking about credentialing and certification in a different way, one that will surface entrepreneurial, creative and innovative educators with the ability to “think differently about what school could look like for kids.”
A Gilbert lawmaker wants to give those on public university campuses more self-defense options, including Tasers.
Rep. Travis Grantham (R-Gilbert)
Republican Rep. Travis Grantham said he isn’t asking for guns on campuses. That perennial proposal by other lawmakers has never made it into law, though a 2016 statute allows people to have firearms on the sidewalks, streets and other publicly accessible rights of way that run adjacent to and through campuses.
But Grantham said the policies at the state’s three universities prohibiting virtually all weapons on campus property itself leaves students, faculty, staff and others at the mercy of attackers.
His H2172 would require schools that get public funds to allow “non-lethal weapons.” That is described as devices “explicitly designed and developed to incapacitate or repel a person with a low probability of fatality or permanent injury.”
Most immediately, if the measure is enacted into law, it would overrule a Board of Regents policy that bans virtually all weapons, including Chemical Mace.
Regents spokeswoman Sarah Harper said the board has no immediate response to what Grantham is proposing. But she noted the regents’ policy does allow “normally available over-the-counter self-defense chemical repellents.”
But Grantham said the wording of the policy prohibits those repellents from containing sufficient quantities of a key ingredient: oleoresin capsicum, essentially a chili oil extract.
He contends virtually all effective forms of what is commonly called “pepper spray” have that chemical. Put another way, he believes those without that chemical are virtually useless.
“It’s kind of like saying you can have a gun, but you can’t have bullets in it,” Grantham said.
The first-term lawmaker said there should be no objection.
“We’re not talking about guns,” he said, adding the only aim is to let someone disable an attacker.
What would that include?
“It’s kind of at the discretion, quite honestly, of the user,” he said. But it definitely would include the pepper sprays containing oleoresin capsicum, he added.
“You could probably lump stun guns into that – anything that’s meant to incapacitate somebody just long enough so you could get away from them if they’re trying to commit a crime against you,” he said.
Grantham said there is a need to overturn the regents’ policy, especially with “sprawling” university campuses.
“Some of these students are coming out of these campuses at 10 or 11 or 12 o’clock at night in downtown parts of the city,” Grantham explained. “And they do feel a little bit uneasy because there’s a lot of people out, and you don’t know who it is. You’re not confined to the safety of the university campus.”
What gives lawmakers the power to override policy is money.
“If the universities are going to take state funding, and if they’re going to expand rapidly like they’re doing now, and if they’re going to be in various parts of the state throughout our metropolitan areas, I think it makes perfect sense that students should be able to carry the same non-lethal type of weapons that you’re able to carry when you’re walking down a city street,” he said.
Grantham said his definition of what kind of non-lethal weapons would be permitted is designed to take into account other kinds of things that exist or may in the future.
That includes special flashlights already available, which are advertised as being able to blind and confuse attackers. It also would pave the way for personal devices designed to emit certain sounds which could confuse and stun someone.
While Grantham said his focus is on university campuses, his legislation also would affect community colleges.
The measure has been assigned to the House Education Committee. No date has been set for a hearing.
ASU students prepare to cross the street to the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism in downtown Phoenix, where roughly 13,000 students attend satellite campuses of the state’s three universities. (Photo by Andrew Howard/Arizona Capitol Times)
Arizona-based universities have increasingly focused on downtown Phoenix in the past decade, with all three state universities bringing satellite campuses to the area between Roosevelt and Van Buren streets.
Their presence has changed the neighborhood as roughly 13,000 students, ranging from undergrad to medical and law, moved to the area. Housing, restaurants, parking and shopping all sprung up since the introduction of the universities.
But one thing has not changed, at least not drastically – voting.
Paul Bentz, senior vice president of research and strategy for HighGround Public Affairs Consulting, said there has been an increase in voter registration in the precincts surrounding the area, but the outcomes remained the same.
The area surrounding the universities is made up of three precincts, McDowell, Westward Ho and Edison.
Since the 2018 election, each of those precincts has seen a rise in registered voters, according to data from the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office that Bentz compiled.
In the McDowell precinct, there was a 17.4 percent increase in voter registration, while in Westward Ho the increase was 26.6 percent and in Edison it was 23.2 percent.
“I don’t know what’s driving that, but there is an uptick in voter registration in all of those areas,” he said.
Even with the rise in registration, Bentz said it is difficult to credit the universities for the increase.
Paul Bentz (Photo by Ellen O’Brien/Arizona Capitol Times)
Participation among younger voters is still relatively low statewide, and college students often stay registered in their home state instead of voting where they attend school, Bentz said.
“They don’t vote,” he said. Statewide, he said people age 29 and under only made up 11.5 percent of the vote in 2018, which is twice the percentage of 2014, but still relatively small.
Despite their possible low voting participation, Bentz said they have played a big role in the changing community.
He said the number of stores, restaurants and housing complexes in the community has clearly increased since the introduction of the universities.
“They have a greater impact on the life of the community than in electoral participation,” he said.
He also said it is hard to look to the legislative districts to say if there has been a political impact. The schools are all located in Legislative District 24, but because the district stretches far outside the reach of the schools it is hard to come to any conclusion about their impact.
Bentz said there is very little Republican participation in those areas.
“These are all heavy Democrat districts to begin with, but there is an under-participation when it comes to independent voters,” he said.
Democrats made up 51.2 percent of registered voters in the McDowell precinct, compared to 11.7 percent for Republicans. In Westward Ho, 48.1 percent are Democrats and 13.5 percent are Republicans.
In Edison, Democrats represent 48.6 percent, and only 8.8 percent are registered with the GOP. The remaining voters are either independent or affiliated with other political parties.
A Valley Metro light rail train passes the Sun Devil Fitness Complex at First Avenue and Polk Street on July 10, 2019. The complex is one of several buildings in downtown Phoenix that house satellite campuses for ASU, University of Arizona and Northern Arizona University where roughly 13,000 students attend. PHOTO BY ANDREW HOWARD/ARIZONA CAPITOL TIMES
He said Democratic participation has remained steady in the precincts, but the percentage of GOP participation has fallen from about 16 percent to between 8 and 12 percent now.
ASU downtown has roughly 12,000 students, UofA has 761 and NAU has 394.
David Wells, a senior lecturer at the ASU downtown campus who teaches political science, said students may have some political impact, but that the downtown area is large and it has historically been Democratic.
He said the population of the area has grown and that portion of that growth has been the universities, but the shift in voter registration is tied to the growth of the whole area.
Wells said that students at the schools may have had a “modest” impact since they came to the area, but he pointed out that the areas have always been heavily Democrat.
“There is not a change in preference, just more voters,” Wells said.
In the 2008 general election, all three precincts voted largely in favor of Barack Obama for president, and all three had significantly fewer registered voters than they do today, according to data from the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office.
In the 2016 general election, each of the precincts voted more than 75 percent for Hilary Clinton, similar to the 2008 margins, but registration had increased significantly.
The only Republican to win in the three precincts in 2016 was County Assessor Paul Peterson, who ran unopposed.
Westward Ho, the precinct that contains the universities, had the highest increase in voter registration since the 2008 election.
Wells said he has seen the shift in ideology through his class’s enthusiasm about presidential candidates. He said that his class was far more enthusiastic about Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, than they were about former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton in 2016.
“Students, they’ve always been Democratic,” he said. “But they keep getting more and more Democratic.”
He said although his students often disagree about Democrats, almost none of his students support the current president.
“It’s hard to find students with an affinity to Donald Trump,” he said.
Wells said he expects young voters to turn out even more in the 2020 general election after a strong showing in the 2018 midterms.
“Everyone has experienced four years of Trump, so I anticipate their motivations will be much higher,” he said.
Wells said many out of state students do not re-register in Arizona, but added that many students from California may register in Arizona because their vote may have a bigger impact here than in California, where Democrats are heavily favored.
Campaigning in the area is not always easy, either.
Lela Alston
Sen. Lela Alston, D-Phoenix, who represents the downtown area that includes the universities, said it can be hard to campaign near the campus because campaigners are not allowed into the dorms or apartment complexes in the area.
Alston said to combat that issue, the campaign tries to send emails and reach out in other ways.
Despite the difficulties for campaigning in the area, she said that if she is asked to participate with students for classes or speak to the student government she will make the time to do so.
“It’s not so much saying ‘vote for me,’ but talking about government and the importance of voting,” Alston said.
Alston said she tries to be as involved as possible with students and young people because of the role they will play in the future.
Student leaders are aware of the low voter turnout in their population, and Victoria Grijalva Ochoa, an ASU student and president of Vote Everywhere ASU, is trying to change the culture.
Grijalva Ochoa said that in order to get students to register to vote, they need to be comfortable.
Grijalva Ochoa said the voter group, which she ran for two years and worked on for three before her graduation, works to break down the barriers students face when registering to vote for the first time.
The group focuses on explaining the voter registration form, bringing in lawmakers to speak and explaining the democratic process, Ochoa said.
Grijalva Ochoa said the group isn’t solely focused on getting students to register in Arizona. She said the priority is just to get students registered, and that if they feel more comfortable voting in their home state, they should.
“Voting in general is our biggest priority,” Grijalva Ochoa said. “We let them know what they can impact voting in Arizona and in their home state.”
Grijalva Ochoa said the club aims to find out what prevents students from voting, and what the club can do to fix it.
“It’s important to ask students ‘why haven’t you voted?’ and ‘what’s stopping you from voting,’” she said.
Diversifying Arizona’s economy away from the five C’s – copper, cotton, citrus, cattle, and climate – has made this state one of the largest manufacturing hubs in the nation with a deeply rooted aerospace industry. Our state currently generates over $11 billion annually in economic activity from aerospace and defense. To address the growing need for a continually diversified and modern workforce, the New Economy Initiative was signed into law, providing millions of dollars in state funding through the Arizona Board of Regents to invest in Arizona’s economic future.
Jessica Rousset
This initiative aims to create 40,000 new jobs by 2041, increase economic output to $6.9 billion by 2023, and double the state’s investment in return, much of which can and should be generated within the space ecosystem. Arizona’s manufacturing and aerospace industry already gives our state a leg-up on achieving these ambitious goals.
According to a 2019 Deloitte study on Arizona’s competitiveness, Arizona is the only state with the capabilities to provide the five critical segments of the space economy – aerospace, launch services, manufacturing, metals and mining and R&D. That same report projects the global space economy will reach $1 trillion in economic activity sometime between 2030 and 2045. Through investment in the New Economy Initiative, Arizona is well positioned to meaningfully participate in this global economic activity by investing in both space and space-adjacent industries.
For fiscal year 2023, the New Economy Initiative will direct nearly $150 million in funding to the state’s public universities, Arizona State University, Northern Arizona University, and the University of Arizona, to accelerate the development of a skilled workforce and spur resilient and sustainable economic growth. The University of Arizona will allocate a significant portion of those funds to the space and defense sector. Arizona State University is putting $34 million toward academic, research, and training programs in five sectors that are critical to the space industry: energy and materials, human performance, extreme environments, advanced manufacturing, and future communications technologies.
Chase Kassel
With catalytic programs like the New Economy Initiative producing skilled workers, funding innovation, and access to infrastructures like ASU’s Innovation Zones that co-locate companies with talent and research labs, Arizona will increasingly see space companies moving to the region, just as Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin recently have.
As the space sector becomes more prominent in the Arizona business ecosystem, it will be important to understand how it intersects with other industry segments and how these other segments can benefit from a growing presence of space companies. This growth will have a significant upstream and downstream impact on the supply chain and strengthen our state’s overall economic growth. For example, Taiwan Semiconductor and Chang Chun Arizona are expanding operations in our state around the same time we are seeing new investments made by large space companies like Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic. With new upstream solutions come new downstream solutions, and vice versa.
With our economic development and business groups, including the Greater Phoenix Chamber strengthening Arizona’s space ecosystem and value chain, with our universities driving innovation, research, and workforce development, Arizona is poised to be a global strategic hub for the space industry.
Chase Kassel is portfolio manager for ASU’s Interplanetary Initiative and Jessica Rousset is deputy drector of ASU’s Interplanetary Initiative.
In this Oct. 13, 2015, file photo, Northern Arizona University President Rita Cheng speaks on the NAU campus in Flagstaff, Ariz., to honor the victim and wounded of a deadly shooting on campus. Cheng announced Tuesday, Sept. 8, 2020, she will not seek an extension of her contract, which expires in 2021. (Taylor Mahoney/Arizona Daily Sun via AP, File)
Northern Arizona University President Rita Cheng announced Tuesday she will not seek an extension of her contract that expires in 2022.
Cheng touted growth in research funding, enrollment, and student retention and diversity since she began overseeing the university in 2014. She said she has confidence in the school’s leadership team, faculty and staff to continue the work amid the coronavirus pandemic.
“While there is still a long road ahead, our planning and response to the pandemic — keeping our eyes totally focused on our academic mission and strategic priorities while engaging in the hard work necessary to keep us on a firm, sustainable financial footing — fills me with pride,” Cheng said in a statement.
The university recently reopened for in-person classes, against the wishes of a union that represents faculty, staff and graduate student employees.
Before the pandemic, a state audit found that the university did not comply with policies in paying more than $40,000 in travel expenses for Cheng and her husband, putting public money at risk. University officials said they believed they were following policy and were unaware the expenses weren’t properly documented.
The Arizona Board of Regents said it will start a nationwide search this fall to replace Cheng, who will serve until a successor is named. During her tenure, the university also expanded housing for honors students, increased health programs and added a 250-seat music recital hall.
Cheng’s contract expires June 30, 2022. She earns an annual base salary of more than $490,000.
Cheng, who was the first in her family to attend college, came to Flagstaff from Southern Illinois University in Carbondale where she served as chancellor. At the time, Northern Arizona had an operating budget of $460 million with about 26,000 students at campuses statewide and online.
The school’s fiscal year 2020 operating budget was $630 million, and the school now serves nearly 30,000 students.
The most difficult time to accept a new challenge and embrace change is when things are going well.
At the start of a new decade, people who live in Arizona have every reason to be pleased – 2020 looks a lot better than 2010 did. Leaders in government and business have worked hard to manage through the challenges that came with the Great Recession and in its aftermath. The pathway has been difficult and they have every right to feel proud of what they have done and what Arizona has to offer.
As tempting as it might be and as much as we may feel we’ve earned it, now is not the time to breathe a sigh of relief and relax. Competitive forces are fiercer than ever.
Michael Crow
Arizona has climbed out of a hole and it is standing on stable ground. That is encouraging and important given the rapid advance of technology and its dramatic impact on businesses, the workplace and the kinds of jobs that will be needed – along with jobs that will disappear.
Arizona has the opportunity to build on its current economic health and to make sure the state economy never suffers again the way it did in the decade following the Great Recession. It means moving the Arizona economy from being fragile and highly vulnerable in times of volatility, to one that is resilient that thrives and grows when exposed to uncertainty, disorder and stress. The Arizona Board of Regents have wisely offered a proposal for public investment in the FY 2021 budget that signals the way forward.
What ABOR has proposed is a strategic investment with a focus at all three state universities on areas that will yield a positive return on investment for taxpayers with an emphasis on high value, high wage industries that are central to the New Economy. It is a focus designed to advance more new business location and expansion opportunities and additional small business development. It is accomplished by using universities to partner with industry to produce a pipeline of talent and an environment of research, discovery and entrepreneurial activity.
At Arizona State University, that means an emphasis on engineering and technology. For those of us at the university, it means accepting the assignment to educate and graduate more students, to find new and innovative ways to partner with the private sector, to produce knowledge and discovery and to push it into the marketplace, and to provide the workforce needed for Arizona businesses of all shapes and sizes.
Because as well as the state of Arizona has done by reducing regulation, tax burdens and being welcoming and in spite of the fact that our quality of life is second to none and that barriers to entry are few, we still see data that tells us we are not expanding economically at the rate of our competition in the region. Personal economic expansion is still greater in states like Colorado and Oregon – and that’s not what we want.
Arizona still must develop the self-generating, knowledge-driven economic center where we are creating from whole cloth new knowledge enterprises that produce thousands of scientists, engineers and designers who make things happen. Not trends we capitalize on, but new things we create to sustain the economy of the future.
The foundational technologies we operate under today will all be replaced. The economy will continue to churn. Think back to 1990 – just 30 years ago. Our present economy looks nothing like that. Our biggest and most important companies were born, grown and totally transformed in that period of time. Think, Apple. Think, Google. Think, Amazon.
This isn’t going to stop. It’s going to happen even faster. Arizona institutions like Intel know this is coming. They know they must adapt, or die.
Arizona needs to be at the leading edge of economic transformation. We are well positioned to do so, but not if we are content with recovery and where we are today.
The Board of Regents proposal calls for ASU, working with the private sector, to lead the emergence of the greatest engineering school ever built, at scale with diversity and creativity, planting the seedlings for new industries and new opportunities.
It is an investment in laying seed for the New Economy by doing three things:
– Continuing to operate America’s most innovative university built on access and quality, welcoming all those at every stage of life who want an education.
– Building the greatest engineering school in the world – the largest, the most creative, the most innovative; and,
– Creating new Science and Technology Centers that will accelerate our opportunities to do research, make discoveries, push ideas into the marketplace advancing the businesses that already exist and spinning off new ones, ready to make their mark.
We are asking for this investment from the state. We accept the assignment. And we will deliver.
— This is the first in a three-part series from ASU President Michael M. Crow about the Arizona Board of Regents New Economy Initiative, a public investment proposal for the state’s FY 2021 budget.
A view of Northern Arizona University campus in Flagstaff and the San Francisco Peaks. DEPOSIT PHOTOS
The Arizona Board of Regents says it plans to appoint Jose Luis Cruz, executive vice chancellor and university provost of The City University of New York, as the next president of Northern Arizona University.
Jose Luis Cruz
The board announced Thursday night in a statement that Cruz had “accepted the opportunity to be the next president of of NAU” and that the regents would approve contract terms and formally appoint Cruz as the new NAU president at a subsequent meeting.
The regents on Tuesday announced interview invitations to Cruz and Bret Danilowicz, provost and vice president for academic affairs at Florida Atlantic University, and board the same day posted a public notice for a special meeting that included closed-door interviews and discussions late Wednesday and Thursday.
The NAU presidency opened up last fall when current President Rita Cheng announced she would not seek a contract extension. She will stay on pending appointment of her replacement.
“Dr. Cruz has an extraordinary record of academic leadership, and I am confident he is the right leader to build on NAU’s success and ensure a bold and boundless future for this beloved and historic university,” said Larry E. Penley in the board’s statement.
Penley also said Cruz is a “proven innovator” and that “his unsurpassed commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion, coupled with a long track record as a leading national advocate to improve educational outcomes for all students — especially those who have historically been underserved — will serve Arizona and NAU well.”
Cruz said in the board’s statement that he was honored to be selected “as the finalist” for the NAU presidency.
Cruz previously served as provost of California State University, Fullerton, is a former vice president of higher education policy and practice at The Education Trust in Washington, D.C., and a former chief student affairs officer for the University of Puerto Rico system. He began his career as an engineering faculty member in engineering at the University of Puerto Rico, Mayagüez, later serving as a department chair and dean of academic affairs.
A new partnership between the state’s three universities and several state agencies aims to increase understanding of issues like Valley Fever and ozone levels in Arizona – and come up with solutions.
The Arizona Board of Regents announced new Regents’ Grants for five three-year research projects in April, allocating a total of about $12 million from its Technology and Research Initiative Fund. The funding comes from sales tax revenue generated by Proposition 301.
Regent Fred DuVal, who chairs the Board of Regents Research and Health Sciences Committee, said the grants came about after he reached out to Gov. Doug Ducey and discussed making universities the state’s “think tank.” While state agencies may occasionally tap into university research, DuVal said the board wants to make that collaboration systemic.
Beyond looking at Valley Fever and the ozone, other research groups are tackling “forever chemicals” – waste management for abandoned Arizona mines and economical recycling. The five projects were selected from a total of 17 proposals state agencies submitted for the first round of grants.
“There are things the state government needs to solve for which they do not have the intellectual capital to solve,” DuVal said.
The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality in particular, DuVal said, has a variety of vexing problems for which they lack resources.
ADEQ Director Misael Cabrera said, “We started with defining the problems. There’s an old adage that says a well-defined problem is a good distance into being solved.”
Cabrera said he hopes the projects will lead to some of the researchers’ findings being implemented through technology or policy.
“I believe it’s brilliant to establish a fund that enables collaboration on some of Arizona’s most pressing needs,” Cabrera said. “And I really, really like the fact that the approach combines practical problem-solving with robust research.”
Dr. John Galgiani, professor at the University of Arizona and director of the Valley Fever Center for Excellence, is also working on Valley Fever research funded by the Technology and Research Initiative Fund. The funding comes from sales tax revenue generated by Proposition 301. PHOTO COURTESY UA
Bridget Barker, an associate professor of biology at Northern Arizona University, has focused on Valley Fever for 20 years. She was first convinced of the fungal infection’s importance when she worked as a technician under Dr. John Galgiani, who is also working on the Valley Fever project and is a professor at the University of Arizona and director of the Valley Fever Center for Excellence.
Barker said the Regents’ Grant creates the first opportunity to bring together a large group of researchers to do a more in-depth survey of the Coccidioides posadasii fungus’ hotspots and work to better understand the fungus’ source and transmission.
“Does it change from month to month? Is (the fungus) there all the time? Is it there at higher amounts at certain times of the year?” Barker asked.
The project is a collaboration among Arizona State University, Northern Arizona University, University of Arizona, ADEQ and Arizona Department of Health Services.
Different researchers will work on different aspects of the issue — from examining the soil and the fungus’ DNA to looking at the air at those sites and ways to suppress the formation of the dust that carries the fungus. Barker said they want to see what connection exists between the soil component and atmospheric release.
“When we have high fungal burden in the soil, do we also see high fungal burden in our air collectors, or are they decoupled?” she said. “That’s something that we really don’t know at all.”
Being competitive for funding is often difficult for Valley Fever research because the topic is so understudied, Barker said. Much of the work is pulled together through small grants, $5,000 or $10,000 at a time. She said she hopes the boost of $4.5 million over the next three years will give researchers a chance to gather the preliminary data needed to be competitive for bigger grants.
Another group of researchers from UofA, Arizona State University and ADEQ will spend the next three years studying how Arizona’s natural environment and possible sources of ozone affect how ozone is produced in the state.
The researchers want to better predict and control pollution. High levels of pollution are linked to more asthma attacks, other respiratory issues and hospital admissions and increased daily mortality. The researchers noted that Arizona has a large population of older adults, who are particularly vulnerable to ozone’s effects on health.
UofA associate professor Avelino Arellano and professor Armin Sorooshian are part of the research team.
“It’s a statewide problem. Air pollution doesn’t really have boundaries — it comes from anywhere,” Sorooshian said. “The more people that can work on this together with all their various tools, the better off we’ll be.”
Arellano and Sorooshian said that by the end of the third year, they would like to have an improved predictive capability to pinpoint what ozone sources or precursors drive the exceedances in ozone in Arizona.
“Is it the human activities, or is it the vegetation and unique vegetation in Arizona that needs to be really understood?” Arellano asked.
In addition to collaborating with other researchers, Arellano and Sorooshian were excited to involve their students in the project, which the Board of Regents allocated $2.8 million over three years.
“We’ll be training quite a few graduate students who we hope can continue this work and even go work at places that are collecting these data and making the big decisions like at ADEQ,” Sorooshian said. “This would be a nice feeder to train people to go to these types of places and contribute even more to the state.”
Correction: A previous version of this story inadvertently left Arizona State University off the list of participants in the project.
The state university system is defending the broad executive powers being exercised by Gov. Doug Ducey arguing it will keep their students out of bars — at least for the time being.
“Bars such as those surrounding the universities are breeding grounds for COVID-19,” wrote a team of attorneys from two private law firms representing the Arizona Board of Regents.
The filing at the Arizona Supreme Court comes as the governor seeks to defend himself from a lawsuit filed by dozens of bar owners challenging his ability to use executive orders to close businesses, including their own. Their attorney, Ilan Wurman, charges that the law giving Ducey that authority is itself unconstitutional.
Ducey already has filed his own legal papers arguing that there’s nothing legally wrong with the statute.
Ilan Wurman
And the governor has picked up support from other groups who have filed their own legal arguments telling the justices why they should throw out the challenge. These include state and local chambers of commerce, organizations representing hospitals, doctors and nurses, and Maricopa County.
The governor’s Department of Health Services even hired an outside attorney so Cara Christ, the agency’s director, could give the state’s high court her own arguments about the nature of COVID-19 and how guidance from federal, state and local health officials “supports (if not compels) Gov. Ducey’s decision to temporarily close bars in Arizona.”
In urging the justices to spurn the legal challenge, the attorneys for the universities detailed all the things they are doing to protect students. That includes promoting social distancing by offering more classes online, spreading out students attending courses in person, and moving things like counseling and academic advising online.
In fact, University of Arizona President Robert C. Robbins on Thursday warned students they could face suspension if they violate health safety rules during the pandemic. Those comments were specifically aimed at social media posts claiming intentions to have parties once classes resume Aug. 24.
The attorneys for the regents told the justices that allowing bars to reopen would undermine all those efforts, calling them “particularly risky.”
“They allow (and even invite) an environment that, in most respects, is exactly the opposite of the safe environment that public health officials recommend — and that the universities are diligently working to create,” the legal brief states.
Put simply, the lawyers say, the bars encourage “unhealthy personal behaviors.”
Consider the issue of masks.
“It is virtually impossible to wear a mask when drinking,” they argue.
“As people become intoxicated, they tend to talk louder, tell jokes or sing, which spreads more droplets,” the attorneys said, quoting newspaper articles. “In many bars, loud music or noisy crowds force you to move closer to hear.”
And then there’s the argument that alcohol compounds the risk.
Robert Robbins
“Alcohol of course can disinhibit people and perhaps promote even more breaches of social distance and sharing of drinks and food,” they argue.
To drive home their point, the attorneys counted the number of bars in the zip codes of each of the three universities.
For Northern Arizona University the tally is 31. It is 44 around the main campus of Arizona State University and 56 in the four zip codes around the University of Arizona. And that, they said, is not by accident, saying that bars market to university students, providing the justices with photos of ads placed by establishments near the schools.
“Similar advertisements fill student and local newspapers, student informational pamphlets, and local tourism guides,” the attorneys told the court.
More to the point, they said there’s a definite link between colleges and bars — and why the latter seek out the former.
“According to one study, the ‘wet’ alcohol environment around campuses — including lower sale prices, more promotions, and alcohol advertising at both on- and off-premises establishments — was correlated with higher binge drinking rates on the college campuses,” the brief states.
And what of the interests of the business owners?
The lawyers say the board “sympathizes” with them and their patrons. But they said the governor’s order “merely sets reasonable limitations as a result of this global pandemic.”
Anyway, they said, the restrictions are temporary — though the governor’s latest order issued just Thursday, extends the closure indefinitely, with a promise to review it every two weeks. And the attorneys said that bars can still provide pick-up, deliver and drive-thru services.
The attorneys do address the legal question at issue, but only briefly.
In challenging Ducey’s action, Wurman said the statute giving the governor broad police powers, including closing businesses, is an unconstitutional delegation of the legislature’s own power.
So the regents are telling the justices that if they find that Wurman’s arguments have legal merit, they should not simply overrule and void Ducey’s order. Instead, they said, the court should give the legislature “an opportunity to correct that purported issue.”
That assumes, however, that lawmakers, confronted with having to debate emergency powers, would give this governor — or any governor — the same sweeping authority.
There is sentiment among some Republicans that how those powers have been used goes beyond what the legislature was thinking when they adopted the law. And they want to revisit the issue, if not immediately, then once the emergency is over.
In this July 25, 2018, file photo, pedestrians cross University Ave on the campus of Arizona State University in Tempe, Ariz. Arizona’s three state universities have released tuition proposals for the 2020-2021 academic year, proposing increases for some students but holding steady for others. Separate statements released Friday, April 17, 2020, by the presidents of the University of Arizona, Arizona State University and Northern Arizona University cited changing and uncertain circumstances for their institutions amid the coronavirus pandemic. (AP Photo/Matt York, File)
Arizona’s three state universities have announced tuition proposals for the 2020-2021 academic year, proposing increases for some students but holding steady for others while waiting to decide in still other categories.
Separate statements released Friday by the presidents of the University of Arizona, Arizona State University and Northern Arizona University cited changing and uncertain circumstances for their institutions amid the coronavirus pandemic.
The Arizona Board of Regents, which oversees the university system said in a separate statement that it wasn’t increasing tuition rates for Arizona residents “at this time.”
The regents plan an April 27 virtual public hearing on the universities’ tuition proposals, and the board is expected to vote on the proposals during a livestreamed meeting on May 7.
The University of Arizona proposed no increase for new resident and nonresident undergraduates and said returning undergraduates wouldn’t see an increase.
“We know our incoming students’ and their families’ finances have been severely impacted by the pandemic, and we’re proposing no increases for incoming undergraduate and graduate students this year. We want them to know they come first,” President Robert Robbins said.
However, changes proposed by Robbins include higher tuition for some graduate students, including first-year Arizona residents attending the medical colleges in Phoenix and Tucson.
The university said Friday it was implementing furloughs and pay cuts for most of its employees as a result of economic strains brought on by the coronavirus outbreak.
ASU President Michael Crow said university officials continued to assess circumstances, including state and federal funding, and had no proposal so far to raise tuition for on-campus undergraduate or graduate students who are Arizona residents.
He said the university would “provide more clarity” on proposed tuition rates for those students as soon as possible but in the meantime he promised that any proposal to increase tuition for Arizona residents would be “as close to zero as possible” and not exceed 3%.
However, Crow asked the regents to give the university greater flexibility on tuition and fees for non-resident and international students and to approve a cap on increases of up to 5% each of the next three years. Those actual rates would be determined later, he said.
Crow also said tuition for online students would be proposed later, with caps of 3% and 5% for increases for returning resident and non-resident students, respectively.
Northern Arizona University President Rita Hartung Cheng said NAU wasn’t yet proposing 2020-2021 tuition rates for Arizona residents “in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and the uncertainty of the current economic environment.”
However, non-resident incoming undergraduate tuition would be 5% higher under NAU’s proposal.
Cheng also proposed a 5% tuition increase for non-resident graduate students at the main Flagstaff campus and satellite sites but no change for online graduate students..
“We understand that in these challenging times, many of our students are facing difficult financial circumstances, and we recognize the value placed on pursuing a degree to improve their future,” Cheng said.
Everyone remembers hearing those words in the late 2000s. Arizona was at the epicenter of an economic earthquake. Our state’s unemployment rate stood at 4.4 percent in December 2007. By December 2009, it had swollen to 11.2 percent.
The state was faced with seemingly insurmountable challenges. Meeting payroll. Keeping the lights on. In fact, even when I took office in January 2015, our state was still facing a more than $1 billion budget shortfall.
Today, thanks to some tough decisions, the determination of Arizona workers and employers, and a growing economy, things look much brighter. We’ll have a $21 million structural balance in fiscal year 2018 and a Rainy Day Fund balance of $463 million. And our credit ratings have improved as a result. A major part of that is due to the state paying down more than $400 million of debt.
Businesses and job creators are expanding, and putting Arizonans back to work. Apple, Caterpillar, Raytheon, Houzz, Intel, Dot Foods – just to name a few. These jobs stretch outside of Maricopa County. Finally, Southern Arizona and rural Arizona are also seeing relief.
Through it all, Arizona’s universities continued to shine. Arizona State University was named the most innovative university in the country two years running, beating out MIT. University of Arizona continues to lead in optics research and technology. And Northern Arizona University consistently produces some of the best teachers in the nation.
With the state’s finances finally in order, we’re proudly taking the opportunity that this turnaround gave us to invest in the future of our state. And that starts with education.
The budget I signed this week makes significant new investments in K-12 education, with a focus on teacher salaries, making our best schools available to more students and providing added resources in low-income areas to help close the achievement gap.
But what rightly attracted the most dialogue this legislative session was our landmark bonding plan for Arizona’s universities – a 25-year roadmap that will keep our universities on the cutting-edge well into the future.
With a partnership between the state and the universities, this plan increases the bonding authority for our three largest public universities, allowing them to direct approximately $1 billion toward research infrastructure like laboratories and maintenance.
Clearly, Arizona already has three of the best public universities in the United States. And this increased financing authority empowers ASU, UofA, and NAU to stay competitive with peer institutions across the country.
This renewed investment means universities will be more competitive attracting research dollars and top tier faculty. It frees up dollars for student programs that otherwise would have gone toward deferred maintenance. And, at the end of the day, these are major construction projects that are estimated to create thousands of jobs in our local communities.
How significant is this plan? ASU President Michael Crow said it is “ushering in a new wave of support for higher education.” NAU President Rita Cheng said the future of her university “shines bright from this plan.” “Arizona’s commitment to higher education will define its future,” she added. I couldn’t agree more.
Not only did this plan earn support from all three universities, the Arizona Board of Regents, and the business community, I’m proud that it passed the Senate on a bipartisan 23-7 vote. That’s proof that good things can happen when we work together.
This is what happens when we have strong finances. We have money to invest. After all, this the first time in a long time that the State of Arizona is having a conversation about adding new money to education, and it explains why we’re calling this the “Education Budget” – because teachers, students, schools and our universities are easily the biggest winners of this year’s budget.
That’s good news for education, for our economy, and for all of us who care about building a strong future for the state we love.
Doug Ducey is the governor of the State of Arizona
Nick Nabours, a research technician with DNASU Plasmid Repository, left, and Stefan Tekel, an ASU doctoral graduate, affix barcode labels to test tubes that will be used in testing for COVID-19, at Biodesign A, March 30, 2020. Arizona State University is assembling thousands of COVID-19 nose and throat swab test kits that are currently in short supply for health care providers. A $2 million donation in emergency grants from the Virginia G. Piper Charitable Trust is funding the project. PHOTO BY CHARLIE LEIGHT/ASU NOW
No corner of the country has been spared from the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. And although the virus has been with us since winter, only now is Arizona experiencing a full-on assault.
Thanks to the state’s three public universities — Arizona State University, University of Arizona and Northern Arizona University — Arizona does not come to the fight completely unprepared. Months before this current spike in cases, researchers and administrators began working on ways to help track, map and stop the virus.
“The breadth of research conducted by all three universities in response to the pandemic is remarkable and is another demonstration of the value of these institutions to the state of Arizona,” said Larry E, Penley, chair of the Arizona Board of Regents. “From working on vaccines to ramping up testing capacity in Arizona and creating new ways to detect the virus, the three universities are devoting major resources to contributions in research to create solutions and advance research to address the pandemic.”
Arizona State University’s response to COVID-19 has involved several of its colleges, with the university’s Biodesign Institute leading the way. ASU converted the Institute’s research infrastructure into a fully U.S. Federal Drug Administration-approved and clinically certified lab capable of performing thousands of COVID-19 tests per day, according to Joe Caspermeyer, manager of Natural Sciences for ASU’s Media Relations & Strategic Communications. These tests have been fully validated and can quickly and accurately detect the virus. Health care workers and first responders are among those being tested.
ASU researchers also have developed the state’s first saliva-based COVID-19 test in order to make testing easier and more available. It may also keep the costs of tests down. Caspermeyer said ASU will expand the saliva-based test to help the state monitor COVID-19 infections as part of a new partnership with Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey’s office.
Other ASU research and development includes:
Developing a simple blood test against all seven strains of coronavirus, including the new SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.
Jumping into action to aid vaccine development efforts via ASU’s virology team.
Engineering a device that can decontaminate N95 masks using ultraviolet light.
Continuing work on a method to improve contact tracing to contain the virus’ spread.
Creating the PPE Response Network, a massive initiative to design, produce and distribute personal protective equipment and other medical supplies by using up to 150 of ASU’s 3D printers.
Administering ASU’s Network for Computational Modeling in Social and Ecological Sciences (CoMSES Net) in order to link a global network of thousands of scientists who are developing computer models used to understand the disease and its spread.
Developing mathematical models that show the effectiveness of wearing facemasks.
Northern Arizona University also is contributing to COVIID-19 research. Paul Keim, director of NAU’s Pathogen and Microbiome Institute, also is the director of the Arizona COVID-19 Genomics Union. The union is a statewide effort to use the COVID’S genetic code to understand its evolution, transmission and movement through the general population. The work is being done in conjunction with the University of Arizona and TGen North.
Assistant Professor of Biology C. Todd French leads NAU’s COVID-19 Testing Service Center, which is working with a biotech company to test vaccine candidates. French and the company are using vaults, which are naturally occurring nanoparticles found in every cell of the human body. They can be used as drug delivery devices.
“We established the CTSC at NAU to aid in the search for potential therapeutics that can inhibit the coronavirus in vitro,” French said. “This summer, we will be bringing online the ability to test potential treatments and vaccines in COVID models, as well.”
Other NAU research and development includes:
Collaborating across its research centers to create new physics-based technology for COVID-19 detection.
An NAU bioengineer developing 3D simulations of sneezing and coughing to motivate social distancing during the pandemic.
Developing interactive disease models to predict the spread of COVID-19 across Northern Arizona.
UA has been tackling the virus from a variety of angles, including testing potential new therapies, attempting to slow transmission of COVID-19 and studying the virus’ effects on the brain. Elizabeth “Betsy” Cantwell, senior vice president for research and innovation at UA credits the university’s wide and rapid response to its faculty.
University of Arizona Graduate student Tyler Ripberger puts plates into a 37-degrees Celsius bath to allow for optimal detection conditions. PHOTO BY KRIS HANNING/UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA HEALTH SCIENCES
“The Office of Research, Innovation and Impact formed a COVID-19 Research Coordination Group for faculty and researchers interested in pursuing research initiatives on coronavirus and/or assisting with state and local community efforts to prevent, contain and/or surveil COVID-19,” Cantwell said. “This group has been meeting since March, with nearly 250 members across 16 colleges, 16 institutes and centers, Banner Health and UA support services, which has led to collaborative efforts to address COIVD-19.”
The university has also developed a highly accurate COVID-19 antibodies test. The test, created by a team led by Dr. Janko Nikolich-Žugich, is similar to ones being created at commercial labs. The UA test, however, is already being used across the state on thousands of frontline health-care workers. The goal, in partnership with state government, is to test 250,000 of Arizona’s front-line workforce. This month, UA and the state expanded the antibody testing eligibility to all hospital employees, as well as those in other health care professions.
“Of approximately 6,000 blood samples analyzed during the initial phase of testing in Pima County, the antibody test returned no false positive results as measured by virus-neutralizing antibodies — the best available indication of immunological protection,” Cantwell said. “Antibody testing will allow individuals to determine if they have recovered from and developed antibodies to COVID-19.”
Other UA research and development includes:
Designing a respirator that uses helium to assist patients with labored breathing.
Developing a COVID-19 sample collection testing kit in response to the national shortage of kits.
Studying wastewater to trace the prevalence of COVID 19 in communities, something researchers at ASU and NAU also are doing.
Designing, 3D-printing and testing new facemasks that fit tightly around the face and can filter out 95% of airborne particles.
All this work began during the stay-at-home order. Only those conducting essential research were allowed to keep working if they followed CDC guidelines. With the state reopened, Cantwell said it’s hoped labs and facilities will be working at 80 percent capacity by August.
“I am heartened and impressed by the innovative measures I have seen in tours I take of labs across campus, including approaches to sanitizing work areas, distancing, staggered schedules, and other protective procedures,” she said.
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
Sign In
Free Newsletter
