CD 8
Democratic – 130,645
Green – 808
Libertarian – 2,530
Republican – 156,361
Amercans Elect – 23
Other – 124,127 

For further information, see attached.

The latest statewide voter registration figures are available on the Secretary of State’s website, www.azsos.gov or by calling 1-877-THE-VOTE.

###

[Editor's Note: any comments unrelated to this topic are subject to be bounced!]

When the topic is protecting liberty and the headline reads, “Even in Illinois but not in Arizona,” we’re in trouble. Indeed, while even the Democrat-controlled legislature in President Obama’s adopted home state of Illinois said no to establishing an insurance exchange to facilitate the federal health care law, Arizona is moving full steam ahead with its exchange and is using more than $30 million in federal tax dollars to do so.

While exchange supporters euphemistically refer to exchanges as “marketplaces,” exchanges are in fact government-sanctioned, invitation-only clubs where only government-approved insurance companies can sell government-approved insurance. No wonder big insurance companies are lobbying so hard for an Arizona exchange and want them to stand even if the President’s health care law is struck down by the Supreme Court in June – they want to make sure they get an invitation to the party so that they can monopolize the market now and forever. Bloomberg News reported just last week that insurance companies stand to gain billions in revenue over the next seven years from the President’s health care law.

While exchanges will benefit the big insurance companies and bureaucrats who will get jobs, the Arizona taxpayers will be stuck paying the bill. At a Senate hearing last November, Arizona’s exchange director, who previously worked for the very insurance lobby that advocated for the passage of the President’s health care law, said he could not answer the question of how much the exchange will costs taxpayers until it was up and running. We do know the Massachusetts exchange costs taxpayers in that state $60 million a year.

Last fall, the Goldwater Institute sent a public records request to the Governor’s office to find out how much the state is spending on the exchange, including specific requests for the payroll records of all state employees who have worked on the exchange since its inception in March 2010. The response was a mere 33 pages of undated, redacted records, most of which are indecipherable. What little is visible indicates that in addition to paying salaries of some unknown amount, tax dollars are paying for exchange employees’ food, lodging and travel. This non-response appears to be a violation of Arizona public records law and we hope the Governor’s office will soon make a full and transparent disclosure of these records.

States are not required to establish exchanges and Arizona should say no. Instead, it is entrenching the federal health care law, along with a new government bureaucracy and the special interests that go along with it.

Diane Cohen is a senior attorney with the Goldwater Institute.

Learn More:

Goldwater Institute: States Must Protect the Health Care Freedom of their Citizens by Saying No to Federal Health Care Insurance Exchanges

Arizona Governor’s Office: Payroll Records (PDF)

Bloomberg: Insurers face $1 Trillion in Revenue at Stake in Health Law

If you’ve ever signed up for a magazine subscription, bought cable TV, or purchased something from an infomercial, you’ve probably encountered the automatic renewal process. After the initial subscription period ends, some companies continue charging you until you jump through myriad time-consuming hoops. And you may never get your money back.

This happens perpetually to Arizona workers, but the consequences are far greater. Year after year, unions take dues from the paychecks of government workers without asking them for permission. The unions then spend the millions of dollars raked in from automatic renewals to fund political warfare their own members oppose.

The Arizona Legislature is considering HB 2103, a bill that would require unions to get members’ permission every year before taking dues from their paychecks.

Under Arizona law, once you’ve joined a government-employee union, you’re never asked if you’d like to continue authorizing paycheck deductions. Big Labor diverts some of those deductions to political activism, which may directly conflict with your political beliefs and have little to do with your job.

For instance, the Service Employees International Union, which represents more than 1 million local and state government workers, public-school employees, and bus drivers nationally, spent much of 2010 organizing boycotts of Arizona in the wake of SB 1070, the immigration legislation overwhelmingly supported by Arizonans.

A half-dozen states have already passed similar paycheck-protection measures, including union strongholds Michigan and Ohio.

Within five years of the passage of Washington’s paycheck-protection law, voluntary paycheck deductions to the state’s teachers-union PAC had shrunk by 75 percent. Paycheck-protection legislation in Idaho and Utah yielded comparable results.

Paycheck-protection laws give government workers a greater voice and force unions to justify to their members why they should continue to subsidize union bosses’ political activism.

HB 2103 will restore the balance of power to working Arizonans – public employees and taxpayers alike.

Darcy Olsen is president and CEO of the Goldwater Institute.

Learn more:

Arizona State Legislature: HB 2103

Arizona Republic: Bill Would Stop Unions from Raiding Paychecks

It’s federal tax day, and many wonder why they owe the government so much money. And those who receive refunds might wonder why the federal government kept so much in the first place.

Yet the shared experience of filling out tax forms – or paying someone to do it for us – should also have us wondering if there’s a better way.

Although a big part of the tax bite stems from functions government has taken on that could easily be handled by the private sector, the costs of complying with the federal tax code are nothing to sneeze at either. According to the Internal Revenue Service’s own calculations, U.S. taxpayers and businesses spend 6.1 billion hours a year complying with federal tax statutes. Translate that time into hours worked instead, and it amounts to more than three million full-time workers, or about 2 percent of current U.S. employment. By comparison, the number of employed Americans between 2008 and today has dropped by about 4 million.

All of this at a cost of $163 billion – money that could have been spent starting businesses, putting more money into savings, or paying household bills.

And these estimates don’t include state-level tax compliance. Although filling out federal tax forms is something every taxpayer in each state has to do, the residents of nine states don’t have to file out a state income tax form. That’s because those states don’t have an income tax.

Those states benefit in more ways than just the cost of time and money spent on filling out tax forms and engaging in tax planning. For instance, those states tend to have higher net job creation rates – about 10 percent higher than those with an income tax between 2000 and 2007.

Why? Because income tax systems penalize work and investment. On the other hand, consumption taxes – like sales taxes – encourage wealth creation.

Arizona policymakers should head toward a broad-based consumption tax that could eliminate some of the current system’s complexity and unlock economic growth.

It’s certainly something that must have crossed the minds of beleaguered taxpayers this week.

Stephen Slivinski is senior economist for the Goldwater Institute.

Learn more:

Internal Revenue Service: National Taxpayer Advocate 2010 Annual Report to Congress (PDF)

Goldwater Institute: Investing in Arizona

It’s no secret that government unions need reform. Government workers earn nearly twice as much as their private sector counterparts, and taxpayers are paying for it. These inflated salaries and benefits are threatening to bankrupt Arizona cities. On top of that, unions spend millions to influence the outcome of elections, estimated to be $400 million this year alone, and support issues that are at odds with the limited government policies you and I support.

The vast majority of that money comes from dues that are automatically deducted from workers’ paychecks. Right now when a government employee joins a union, a portion of his paycheck is redirected to the union to pay dues. The problem is that workers are never asked again if they want to keep paying those dues. The money is deducted automatically, forever.

We want unions to ask permission once each year to keep collecting dues from government employee paychecks. Those who want to keep paying may do so, and those who don’t will be able to stop. It will be up to the worker how they pay their dues, not their union boss.

We need your help. Will you make one phone call today to help pass a bill that would give government workers “paycheck protection?”

Six other states have passed this reform and we know what happens: union spending on political activity plummets.

If we could pass this measure in Arizona there would be fewer union-funded lawsuits against limited government reforms passed by the Legislature and voters. It would also help Arizona get government worker pensions and benefits in-line with the private sector. With less money at their disposal to oust courageous elected officials who vote for pension and benefit changes, we could make real progress in getting Arizona cities and towns back on sound financial footing.

Here’s how you can help:

1. Please call the Speaker of the House, Andy Tobin from Prescott, and ask him to let the “paycheck protection” bill come up for a vote. You can reach Speaker Tobin at (602) 926-5172.
2. Once you’ve called the Speaker, please call the state representatives who represent you and tell them you support paycheck protection, House Bill 2103, and ask them to vote yes. There is no need to call your state senator—they have already passed the bill. You can find out who your state representatives are by clicking here.

The unions are fighting this reform tooth and nail, and we know legislators need to hear from regular taxpayers. I hope you will please take just one minute today to make your voice heard.

Starlee Rhoades is Executive Vice President of the Goldwater Institute.

Learn More:

Goldwater Institute: Protecting Workers’ Paychecks from Union Raids

Goldwater Institute: Reforming Arizona

PAChyderm Coalition MO

Is proud to announce

Senator Don Shooter – LD24

For the first time in many years there may be an opportunity to restore some money to the State’s “Rainy Day” fund or provide some relief for overburdened taxpayers. As Chairman of Appropriations Committee, he will bring us an update on the state budget and negotiations with the Governor’s office.

Wednesday April 18, 2012

The Patriot Room

At Dillon’s Arrowhead

20585 N 59^th Ave, Glendale

 (easy access just north of the Loop 101, east side of 59^th Ave.)

Dinner Meeting at 6:15 pm

Dinner – your choice of order off the menu

Seating is limited

E-Mail Diane Douglas at azpatsfan@cox.net for your reservation or additional information.  First come, first serve.  You will not receive a reply unless the event is full.  If you have already sent an RSVP there is no need to do so again.  Thank you!

www.pachydermcoalition.com

Click image to enlarge

Open your wallets even wider, Arizona taxpayers.

You may already know that every American is on the hook for just under $50,000, each person’s piece of the $15.6 trillion in debt run up by the federal government.

But what you may not know is that so much more is owed in your name; about $10,258 for every Arizonan’s share of the $66.5 billion in debt and unfunded obligations borrowed by state and local governments.

In a new report, Debt and Taxes, the Goldwater Institute breaks down that debt. It also enters the strange world of public finance where debt is not debt, governments are not governments and billions of dollars in obligations are supposedly traded without risk.

Most of the debt racked up by state and local governments – about $44 billion – is in bonds issued by the state, counties, cities, school districts and hundreds of other taxing authorities created as stand-alone governments under Arizona law. Billions more comes from shortfalls in pension plans for government workers. There is even $1.3 billion in payments the Legislature simply chose not to make to balance the state’s budget that is just floating around on the books.

The Arizona Constitution is supposed to limit the state’s total debt to $350,000. The tabs that can be run up by local governments have their own caps as well. But the courts have determined those limits only apply to certain types of debt. So governments in Arizona rely far more heavily on borrowing that is not confined by constitutional restrictions or requirements for voter approval.

The Goldwater Institute has developed a series of policy recommendations to curb the ability of state and local governments to bypass voters and avoid constitutional restrictions on issuing debt.

Why should you care? State Treasurer Doug Ducey said it best:

“Taxpayers should care about it because it’s an obligation that they or their children are going to have,” Ducey said. “People should be concerned about the amount of debt, the type of debt, and the fact that there is no overall plan to pay down the state debt.”

Mark Flatten is an investigative reporter with the Goldwater Institute.

Learn more:

Goldwater Institute: Debt and Taxes: Arizona Taxpayers on Hook for $66 Billion Tab Run Up by State, Local Governments

Goldwater Institute: Recommendations for Reform

Tax policy is often like looking at a pointillist painting – stare closely at only a section, and you don’t have a sense of the whole picture. But when you back up, the picture comes into a focus.

Governor Brewer recently signed into law HB 2123 which will help policymakers and the public stand back and take a much-needed look at all the elements of the tax code at once.

The law creates a tax reform commission for Arizona that will be required to issue a report by October. The commission will take a look at how well or poorly the current system works overall relative to desired economic outcomes and the need to fund the government.

I know what you’re thinking, “oh good; another government commission.” But, other states, such as Georgia, have convened a similar sort of commission, and in many cases, the committee hearings and the resulting reports have motivated a healthy debate about the best sort of tax system the state should have. And that’s a good thing.

Too often, tax changes are made on an ad hoc basis or by voters at the ballot box based on political whim. Additionally, tinkering in one part of the tax code – usually by making exceptions for certain types of businesses – can lead to unintended consequences and pressures to keep taxes high on other business and industries.

Fundamental tax reform necessarily starts with a broad approach. The piecemeal fashion the Legislature and voters pursue now leads to relatively high tax rates and a narrower tax base. In other words, high taxes on some, low taxes on others, and a growing constituency of beneficiaries – whether it be special interest lobbyists, tax accountants, or legislators hoping to woo a certain type of business or industry – entrenches the current tax system and might even make it worse.

The first step in reforming the tax code is to view it in its entirety. Commissions are a common way to do that and they also help policymakers and the public understand what’s broken and – perhaps most important – whether any taxes should be substantially reformed, reduced, or terminated to help create jobs and raise family incomes.

Stephen Slivinski is senior economist with the Goldwater Institute.

Learn more:

Goldwater Institute: Arizona must choose the right path on tax policy

Goldwater Institute: Unleashing Entrepreneurial Forces: States Can Spark Business Creation, Attract Venture Capital Investment, and Increase Job Growth by Eliminating Taxation of Capital Gains

Goldwater Institute: Investing in Arizona: How the Legislature Can Get Arizona’s Economy Moving Again by Reducing the Barriers to Investment and Job Creation

April 3, 2012 (Tucson, AZ) – In response to Arizona HB 2549, a bill that critics believe violates First Amendment speech rights on the Internet, Arizona Congressional Candidate Dave Sitton encouraged the legislative conference committee, where the bill now sits, to either kill the bill, or to more narrowly define the bill to make it Constitutional.

“I understand that the intent of the bill was to protect certain people from being stalked or threatened and there are laws on the books that already do that. It is obvious, however, that the language of the bill goes much further, and could criminalize behavior that the bill was not intended to address. Most people have been annoyed at times by what they have read on the Internet, but there are definite First Amendment protections for this type of speech that this law puts into jeopardy.”

Sitton believes that more narrowly defining the scope of the bill to one-on-one communication such as text messaging or emails sent to a private email account would go a long way to making the bill both constitutional and effective in the manner intended by the legislators.

In reference to State Senator Frank Antenori, who voted for the bill, and is also running for the Republican nomination in the Arizona Eighth Special Election, Sitton encouraged Antenori to show a little more care and diligence before voting, stating “One of the biggest reasons why congress and elected officials remain unpopular is because they tend to rush through bills without understanding the effect that they may have outside of the intent of the drafters.”

For more information visit www.davesitton.com 

# # #

Gov. Jan Brewer is poised to expand one of the most liberty-enhancing education reforms in U.S. history, the latest step in her growing legacy of meaningful education reform.

Last year, Gov. Brewer’s signature created the nation’s first education savings account program for K-12 students, which allows parents to use state funds to customize their child’s education. With these savings accounts, the state deposits 90 percent of a student’s per pupil funding in a private account managed by her parents. Parents can use the funds for private school tuition, tutoring services, online classes, and textbooks, as well as several other educational services. Families can also save the funds for college tuition.

Under current law, students with special needs are eligible for the accounts. The proposed expansion now on the governor’s desk would extend eligibility to 94,000 students in chronically failing public schools, as well as academically gifted students and students in military families.

This will more than triple the number of students eligible to participate, to more than 300,000. And each participating student costs taxpayers less than the cost to send a student to a regular public school.

Gov. Brewer enacted the savings accounts last year, enhancing Arizona’s reputation as the nation’s leader in education reform. She continued to lead bold reforms this year, doubling the amount individuals can contribute to private school scholarship organizations under the state’s scholarship tax credit law.

Gov. Brewer has proved she is committed to school choice and will make it one of the cornerstones of her agenda. The following is from her school-choice website:

It remains my priority to expand school choice and enhance the role of parents in their children’s education. I am proud to say that Arizona leads the nation when it comes to school choice and the empowerment of parents to decide which avenues are most conducive to their children’s educational success.

By signing the bill on her desk now, she’ll cement her place in Arizona education reform history.

Jonathan Butcher is Education Director of the Goldwater Institute.

Learn more:

AZ.gov: Arizona School Choice website

Goldwater Institute: Education Savings Accounts: Questions and Answers

Goldwater Institute: Education Savings Accounts Extend Hope, Opportunities

PREPARED FOR

THE ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ETHICS COMMITTEE

SUBMITTED MARCH 30, 2012

Preliminary Statement

Michael C. Manning, Craig A. Morgan, Sharon W. Ng, and Danelle G. Kelling of Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP have been retained to serve as Special Counsel for the House of Representatives Ethics Committee to conduct an independent investigation regarding Representative (“Rep.”) Daniel Patterson (“Patterson”). The scope of this investigation is not limited to the domestic violence allegations made in the February 27, 2012, Ethics Complaint (the “Ethics Complaint”) filed against Rep. Patterson.1 See Exhibit 1 (Ethics Complaint). The scope of this investigation, as defined by the House Ethics Committee, is much broader. Specifically, we have been asked to (i) investigate and report whether Rep. Patterson has engaged in a pattern of inappropriate, indecorous, illegal, or unethical conduct in violation of law or the House Rules, and (ii) recommend a course of disciplinary action.2

(continue reading)

1. Applicable Statute

The rules are set forth in the definition of “independent expenditure,” in A.R.S. § 16-901(14). The definition of “election” is that it means any “primary, general,…or runoff election.” (Emphasis added). Therefore the primary is a separate election from the general. A.R.S. § 16-901(7) also states “for purposes of § 16-903 and § 16-905, the general election includes the primary election.” Neither of those Sections is applicable to the issue presented here. This reinforces the fact that, for our purposes, the primary election is a separate election from the general election.

2. Facts

Kathleen Winn was a victim of Andrew Thomas’ unjust practices as County Attorney, and false charges against her were repeatedly dismissed by the court. Ultimately she prevailed. In December 2009, she filed an independent committee called Business Leaders for Arizona, to oppose Andrew Thomas. This was done on her own initiative, and was “without cooperation or consultation” with Tom Horne or anyone acting on his behalf, and without “any arrangement, coordination or direction” with Tom Horne or anyone acting on his behalf. She never received any compensation from Tom Horne or anyone acting on his behalf. She raised $2,480, paid almost all of it ($2,100) to a website/graphic design expert in January 2010. He took the fee, but did not do anything. The project fizzled, and she abandoned it.

Although Kathleen filed papers with the Secretary of State’s office because she thought there would be an independent campaign, in fact there was no independent campaign during the primary. The above quoted statute defines “independent expenditure” as an expenditure “that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate…” There was no express advocacy, because there was no activity at all, other than a payment for which nothing was ever received.

Kathleen then volunteered in Tom Horne’s campaign in the primary election in 2010. She was not an “officer, member, employee or agent of the committee” of that campaign, but solely a volunteer.

When the primary was over, Kathleen told Mr. Horne she was withdrawing from the campaign, in order to be able to conduct an independent campaign during the general election. This was on her own initiative, and was “without cooperation or consultation” with Tom Horne or anyone acting on his behalf, and without “any arrangement, coordination or direction” with Tom Horne or anyone acting on his behalf. Those who participated in the campaign can confirm that, after the primary, Kathleen stopped coming to meetings.

3. Motive for False Charges

When Don Dybus sent his letter, he knew he was about to be fired. He sent letter to the Attorney General’s Office indicating that he could not be fired. Sharon Collins, the Manager of the Tucson Office, asked him why he sent a letter of charges, as referred to in his letter, and he responded that “I knew that Rick Bistrow [the Chief Deputy in the Attorney General’s Office] was about to fire me, and I was afraid of losing the health insurance.”

On February 9, shortly before the letter was written, Tom Horne was on the telephone with Sharon Collins, and with Rick Bistrow, the Chief Deputy Attorney General. Horne told Collins to tell Dybus that he had not been working to standard, and that if he did not start working to standard, he would have to be let go. Collins passed this message, in substance, to Dybus, shortly before he sent his letter.

4. Hiring of Kathleen Winn

There was never a promise made to hire Kathleen Winn. She was not among the new employees processed during the transition period following the election. Kathleen Winn was not the first choice for that job. The offer was first made to Kim Owens, who decided she wanted to pursue other avenues in the private sector. Only then was the offer made to Kathleen Winn, based on her qualifications, and the confidence Tom Horne had developed in her during the primary. A statement of her qualifications is attached as Exhibit A. It is common for public figures to hire people in whom they have developed confidence during the election. The point is that no promise was made, and this is obvious from the fact that she was not hired at first, and that when the job for which she was hired opened up, something else was the first choice. Winn’s salary is the same as that of her predecessor.

5. Nathan Sproul

Tom Horne has had no contact with Nathan Sproul since the before the last election. Kathleen Winn chose his consulting company for the independent campaign. Tom Horne had no participation in that decision, nor did he know of it.

6. Contribution from Richard Newman

Tom Horne did not know that Kathleen Winn was approaching his sister for a contribution to the independent campaign. His sister and Kathleen Winn had met at the primary victory party, at which time his sister gave Kathleen Winn her phone number and asked her to call if there was anything she could do to help in the general election.

Richard Newman formed Horne Consulting, L.L.C. on March 26, 2010, not in October 2010, which illustrates the falseness of the charges that have been made, by facts that can be confirmed by the public record. Richard Newman ceased to be an employee of a company called AACOM on April 1, 2010, but he remained as a non-executive chairman of the board, and a consultant. Horne Consulting was formed in connection with his becoming a consultant. It had nothing to do with this election. No money passed through Horne Consulting for political contributions. All contributions in the independent campaign were from personal funds. Tom Horne had not heard of Horne Consulting until the article published today.

7. Formal Findings Against Rotellini Independent Campaign

The democratic Attorney General’ Association is the sole source of funding of a front group called the Committee for Justice and Fairness.[ 1 ] It spent $600,000 attacking me on behalf of my opponent Felicia Rotellini. It made the willful decision not to comply with Arizona’s requirements for filing disclosures with the Secretary of State, and oral disclosures in advertising. An Administrative Law Judge made that finding, and a copy of that decision is attached as Exhibit B. By contrast, Kathleen Winn diligently complied with all filing and disclosure requirements.

In addition, in September 2010, Felicia Rotellini attended a meeting of the Democratic Attorney General’s Association, and their funding of an independent campaign on her behalf followed shortly after that.[ 2 ] I attended no meeting of the Republican Attorney General’s Association or similar organization prior to the election. The irony of the present inquiry is that I went much further than many other candidates to stay far away from the line that separates campaigns from independent campaigns.

Footnotes:

[ 1 ] http://forms.irs.gov/politicalOrgsSearch/search/gotoSearchDrillDown.action?pacId=’27494′&criteriaName=’COMMITTEE+FOR+JUSTICE+AND+FAIRNESS’

[ 2 ] 9/14/10 Tim Nelson contribution in kind for “Daga conference.” http://azsos.gov/cfs/PublicReports/2010/78E892B2-7282-4CC7-BAC5-2F1313E7B899.pdf 

Exhibits:

http://www.azag.gov/AGResponseExhibits4-2-12.pdf

###

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona
Monday, April 2, 2012

Arizona Capitol Times by Jeremy Duda April 2, 2012 Federal authorities are investigating Attorney General Tom Horne over allegations that he illegally collaborated with an independent expenditure committee that spent more than a half-million dollars on negative ads against his Democratic opponent in 2010, the Arizona Capitol Timeshas learned. A complaint filed in February by a former political ally and prosecutor in Horne’s own office, alleges that the attorney general collaborated with an independent expenditure called Business Leaders for Arizona, which received $115,000 from Horne’s brother-in-law in California. The complaint, filed with the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office, also alleges that Horne rewarded the chairwoman of the campaign group with a high-paying job at the Attorney General’s Office. Business Leaders for Arizona was chaired by Kathleen Winn, a real estate agent and Republican activist who became Horne’s director of community outreach after his election. The independent expenditure ran a series of attack ads against Democrat Felecia Rotellini, Horne’s general election opponent, after a national Democratic group started running ads on her behalf. (Read the entire article by Jeremy Duda at the Arizona Capitol Times.)

Arizona students are at risk of having fewer digital learning options if lawmakers do not reconsider SB 1259, which provides more options for students to pursue digital learning outside of their school district’s boundaries.

We cannot expect all sides to agree with every detail of such a large piece of legislation, but current Arizona law lacks guidance when it comes to online learning.

As a result, some districts have adopted policies that limit student options for online coursework. Additionally, the state’s virtual school funding system pays schools based on enrollment, not student course completion and subject mastery. Until we find virtual truancy officers that won’t trample First Amendment rights, the state should adopt policies that fund schools based, in part, on course completion and evidence of student proficiency.

“Essentially, virtual education is moving into that intersection where rising popularity meets calls for greater accountability,” writes Kevin C. Bushweller in Education Week. “How the virtual education movement responds to those calls will have a significant impact on how it evolves in K-12 over the next five to 10 years.”

Education researchers and state lawmakers around the country are exploring ways to provide quality educational options online. Simply allowing students to enroll in any online class and use those credits for graduation is risky; students are bound to stumble across a class that demands little from them and, consequently, is not valuable to them.

Likewise, limiting student options to what local districts provide is akin to letting beachgoers swim only in tide pools.

This bill also creates a feedback system for parents and students. The result will be a guide to course selection similar to Consumer Reports. Parents and students will rate courses and offer comments on their experiences, and these ratings will be made available to help other students as they consider their options.

SB 1259 gives students more options and should give parents a consumer guide to online courses. Updates such as these help create an effective digital education environment for all students.

Jonathan Butcher is Education Director for the Goldwater Institute.

Learn more:

Goldwater Institute: Cane Toads, Virtual Schools, and Unintended Consequences

Goldwater Institute: Keeping Up with the Speed of Virtual Education

Goldwater Institute: School Choice and the Future of Online Education

Education Week: Spotlight Turns Toward Virtual Ed. Accountability

Colleagues — The allegations against me are lies. I have not been arrested, charged, served or invoked immunity.

It seems I am being blackmailed by a person with bad mental health problems and a violent criminal history I only recently realized the severity of. When I asked this person to please consider moving out of my house, to protect my daughter, she went in to [sic] a rage. She attacked me, but I never hit her.

The truth will come out. You should not rush to judgment, please.

Members, I ask you please to call me to discuss my side of the story, the truth.

Then there is this little tidbit from The Yellow Sheet Report:

ETHICS COMPLAINT ‘POLITICALLY MOTIVATED’

Patterson also struck back at his caucus for calling for his resignation and filing an ethics complaint – moves that Patterson said were politically motivated. “Sometimes, they have a lynch mob mentality in politics. People want to elevate themselves by throwing someone else under the bus,” he said. Although he said on multiple occasions that he doesn’t hold anything against his colleagues and that he likes and respects Campbell and Hobbs, he said that he suspects they are trying to bolster their own political image at his expense. Campbell’s call for him to step down, he said, was driven by the fact that he was “one of the more independent members of the Democratic caucus, and some of the Democratic Party bosses in Phoenix don’t like that. Maybe they’re hoping to replace me with a yes-man who will toe the party line.” Hobbs, meanwhile, was seeking a cause to build her Senate campaign around: “Katie has always been a crusader on these types of issues. Maybe this is something she thinks will help her in her Senate campaign.” But, ultimately, he said, he works for his constituents, not his party leaders. Patterson attended the floor session today, but was only present to record his attendance. During the multiple COW calendars, he was not on the floor, but he returned for the third reading of bills.