Regents taking their name too seriously

October 29, 2016

The dictionary’s first definition of the noun “regent”:

1. a person appointed to administer a country because the monarch is a minor or is absent or incapacitated.

 The Arizona Board of Regents is the governing body of Arizona’s public university system, providing policy guidance to the state’s three universities.The Governor appoints eight volunteer members for staggered eight-year terms. Obviously they have a job to do — but we, the citizens of Arizona are neither absent nor incapacitated. As taxpayers, parents and students, we foot the bill for the ever increasing tuition and fees to ensure the university presidents get their overly generous salaries, perks and bonuses. The following two posts provide a bit of perspective:  Michael Crow, Sybil Francis: A$U’s pricey duo is from Feb. 2013. In 2014, we pointed out what a deal we were told we were getting for our money: Gifting ASU’s Prez with $95K raise+benies = one helluva deal.

This was the benign sounding Oct. 26, 2016 meeting notice regarding the “possible direction to the University of Arizona regarding its colleges of medicine.

The front page article in the daily newspaper the next day, carried a more ominous headline, “Regents end inquiry into UA medical school in Phoenix, but keep report under wraps.”  The newspaper account details the closed-door hearing and refusal of the media request to release a copy of the report after the Arizona Medical association, representing 4,000-member doctors, requested an independent review of the circumstances surrounding the departures of Dr. Stuart Flynn, longtime dean of UA’s Phoenix medical school, and a half-dozen leaders on his management team. The medical association wanted the consultant’s review to include interviews of Flynn and other departed leaders.

The article also included this separately boxed haughty comment from Greg Patterson, the chairman of the Board of Regents: “The board does not believe that additional board inquiry is necessary at this time.”  Period. End of discussion.

The Regents include lawyers, lobbyists, a doctor, business and civic leaders, a Hopi tribal leader and educators. We might be better served with a few construction workers, waitresses and auto mechanics in the mix — regular folks who struggle to send their kids to college. The arrogance level might decline to more acceptable levels.


Americans becoming more wary

June 14, 2016

Confidence in many established institutions dropping like a rock

Trust in banks, organized religion, news media, and congress fell significantly during the past decade, according to this recent Gallup survey.

The report reveals Americans clearly lack confidence in the institutions that affect their daily lives: the schools responsible for educating the nation’s children; the houses of worship that are expected to provide spiritual guidance; the banks that are supposed to protect Americans’ earnings; the U.S. Congress elected to represent the nation’s interests; the news media that claims it exists to keep them informed and the judiciary which is supposed to render unbiased decisions. The U.S. military remains held in high regard as does law enforcement and big business.

 The nearly across-the-board decline in trustworthiness of these previously solidly respected institutions has given rise to an increasingly jaundiced view, culminating in higher levels of distrust.

Americans_lose_confidence_in_institutions

Seeing Red AZ is conducting our own poll, with this two-pronged question: Where has your level of confidence fallen most significantly, and why? We’re also interested in our reader’s solutions.


AZ joins states fighting Obama bathroom directives

May 26, 2016

Obama’s transgender bathroom mandate meets with resistance

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich and state Superintendent of Public Instruction Diane Douglas have announced that they have joined ten other states in a federal lawsuit to challenge Barack Obama’s mandate requiring all public K-12 schools to open up boys’ and girls’ locker rooms and restrooms to students of the opposite sex, based on student perceptions of their “gender identity.”

Since the President has threatened to deny federal funding to all schools that object to this outrageous decree,  Arizona has joined Texas, Alabama, Louisiana, Maine, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, Georgia, West Virginia and Wisconsin in a lawsuit filed in the United States Court for the Northern District of Texas. The lawsuit is focused on who should set these sensitive policies —- the federal government via executive order or states and local school districts. The challenge seeks declaratory relief against a number of federal agencies in order to block the implementation of the administration’s unconstitutional interpretation of the law. The Heber-Overgaard Unified School District has also joined the state’s lawsuit as a plaintiff.

The lawsuit was filed Wednesday in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in response the Obama administration’s issuance of a broad directive advising every public school district in the country they must allow transgender students to use the bathrooms that match their gender identity rather than their biological sex.

The implicit threat is that schools that do not abide by the Obama administration’s interpretation of the law could face lawsuits or a loss of federal aid.

Read the formal filing of the complaint which states in part these truths regarding the overt attempts at social engineering by the radically left-wing lame duck president:

“Defendants have conspired to turn workplaces and educational settings across the country into laboratories for a massive social experiment, flouting the democratic process, and running roughshod over commonsense policies protecting children and basic privacy rights. Defendants’ rewriting of Title VII and Title IX is wholly incompatible with Congressional text. Absent action in Congress, the States, or local communities, Defendants cannot foist these radical changes on the nation.”


Still have questions about Prop. 123? Here’s clarity

May 7, 2016

VOTE NO ON PROP. 123:  There is no free money, but plenty of deception

Arizona treasurer Jeff DeWit, interviewed by Fox News’ John Hook on Newsmaker Sunday, brings a dose of reality to this hot topic.

Seeing Red AZ has previously written two posts on the topic:

Vote NO on deceptive Prop. 123

AZ School funding sham exposed: Vote NO on Prop. 123


Left’s utterly ridiculous education statements

April 30, 2016

Liberal Provocateur E.J. Montini, one of the remaining henchmen at the increasingly irrelevant Periódico de la República de Arizona (Arizona Republic) headlines his column “Arizona is selling our kids’ brains to the Koch brothers.”

In Liberal Land, the Koch brothers are targeted and reviled for being wealthy political conservatives who usually donate to GOP candidates. No such indignant hostility exists when radical leftist ideologues George Soros, Tom Steyer, or Michael Bloomberg — among the multitude of other Dems* finance the left-wing agenda.

Question for E.J. Montini: Would the disturbing facts dropping out of the mouth of Robert Chanin, longtime General Counsel for the “powerful” American Education Association (on the occasion of his retirement),  also qualify as “selling our kids’ brains?” Those leftwing unionist teachers spend more time with America’s children than most of their parents do. The NEA members  are proficient propagandists. Keep these words in mind when you mark your ballots on Prop. 123. Don’t fall for the con. Vote No. 

* H/T The Sunlight Foundation.


AZ School funding sham exposed: Vote NO on Prop. 123

April 20, 2016

Problematic Proposition 123 fraught with deception

 The Arizona Daily Independent runs a fact-filled report titled, DeWit: Arizona “Run Like A Mini Dougtatorship.” State treasurer Jeff DeWit boldly states his opposition to Prop. 123, the flim-flam education funding scheme being relentlessly pushed by Gov. Doug Ducey.

The far left Arizona Republic newspaper gives it an editorial stamp of approval, writing: “Proposition 123 represents an opportunity to infuse big money into Arizona’s K-12 public schools. It is step one in a long journey of restoring proper funding to our schools.” The editorialist unconvincingly adds, “but with tough expectations for Arizona’s governor.” 

Take a look at that “big money” being donated to the promotion of Prop. 123 by some of the wealthiest individuals and business entities in the state. Then ask yourself what’s in it for them. Rest assured it’s not the ability to nurture warm feelings of benevolence.

The donor’s names and their campaign donations follow the final paragraph of the ADI report.

When asked about the large donations to the pro-Prop 123 campaign, DeWit said that the money was provided by “the richest people in the state. From what I understand – what they say down there,” referring to the Capitol, “there is talk that they have been promised future tax cuts. There are cuts that are targeted to that, and that’s why they are giving the money. There is a reward kind of return. I have been told that there was a fundraiser at the Governor’s house where they wrote these checks. He invited them over, and there were some closed room talks and they wrote big checks. And that’s it.”

Seeing Red AZ posted Vote NO on deceptive Prop. 123 on Monday. It contains important information to enable voters to make an informed choice against this duplicitous measure.


Vote NO on deceptive Prop. 123

April 18, 2016

Special Election May 17, 2016 — Early balloting begins April 20

Proposition 123 is being heralded as Arizona’s education panacea, providing school funding without raising taxes. If you believe in the tooth fairy, this will be right up your alley. Ballots are being mailed this week. We all have busy lives, but it’s imperative we get up to speed on the ramifications of this proposition.

Ask yourself why current state treasurer Jeff DeWit and previous treasurers Carol Springer and Dean Martin oppose amending the Arizona Constitution, raiding our state’s Permanent Land Trust Endowment and guaranteeing tax increases, including raising your property taxes without adequately addressing our state’s school funding problems. As Arizona’s Chief Banker and Investment Officer, Treasurer DeWit oversees more than $13 Billion in state assets and serves as an investment manager for local governments. His extensive background in finance makes him a credible source on this issue.

The Arizona Secretary of State’s Office provides arguments filed for and against Proposition 123. Since we strongly oppose the measure, we are providing the No on Prop. 123 opinions. Read them over carefully.

This brief video explains the better answer to school funding for Arizona‘s students   Protect the future of Arizona’s K-12 education system. More information is available here.

7 reasons to vote NO on Prop. 123

Prop 123 in a nutshell.

What got us here?

A different path to take.

Knowledge is power. Vote wisely. Our children and their futures are too important for this quick, but deceptive, fix.

Arizona’s K-12 education system is underfunded, but Proposition 123 will make sure it stays that way for the next generation. No one would argue that Arizona’s schools have enough money.  We all know that Arizona students deserve better, but Proposition 123 doesn’t solve the problem.  It doesn’t bring any revenue that is not currently owed to our schools, it spends future money today, while constitutionally limiting spending for future students.