Graphic illustration by Gabriel Utasi/Tribune

The editorial board of Arizona State University’s student newspaper, the State Press, apparently didn’t like the Tribune’s suggestion that the Arizona Board of Regents postpone any further increases in student tuition or classroom fees for at least one year. The State Press responded with an editorial Thursday that says the Tribune is well-intended but ill-informed, because regents have no choice but to keep raising tuition because the Legislature steadfastly refuses to properly fund the universities.

I can’t say I’m surprised by the State Press editorial. Students attending public colleges routinely believe elected officials don’t understand the importance of such institutions, and so they divert tax dollars to purposes of far less value. I certainly believed that 20 years ago when I was attending the University of Wyoming, and made the exact same argument as the State Press in a column for that campus’ student newspaper.

But the facts are the Arizona Board of Regents has increased tuition and other fees at a rate higher than inflation throughout this decade, while the Legislature has funded student population growth during most of those years. Lawmakers have failed to provide enough funding for building construction and maintenance during the good years. But the universities have made their own mistakes, such as when ASU failed to install enough fire sprinklers when it remodeled the Memorial Union.

Arguments about class sizes being too big or not getting the right professor ring hollow when more students can no longer afford to enroll at a public university in first place, or they have to ring up so much debt that their lives are heavily burdened for years after graduation.

And there’s another issue to consider. Capitol Media Services reported in today’s Tribune that some lawmakers are looking to grab the money that the three universities expect to bring in from this year’s tuition increases. So postponing any additional increases for a year is unlikely to harm the universities, but would be a boon for students in a tough economy and might ease growing tensions between the board of regents and the Legislature.

    REP. DAVID LUJAN

Last summer, a small group of Valley journalists and people from other careers met at the Tempe Public Library to discuss possible ways to make government more transparent to the public, with an emphasis on freedom of information and open records law.s The meeting was organized by the 21st Century Right-to-Know Project as part of a national listening tour for the purpose of developing proposed policy changes for the incoming new president (whether it turned out to be John McCain or Barack Obama).

While most of the discussion focused on federal agencies, state Rep. David Lujan, D-Ariz., spoke to the group about how Arizona law works and where potential gaps might be. The back-and-forth led to the point that while Arizona has a robust open records’ law that most lawmakers support, the Legislature always has been exempt from obeying it. Lujan noted the irony that the Legislature expects other government agencies to follow a statute that lawmakers won’t impose on themselves.

Lujan pledged before the group to draft and introduce a bill next year that would generally include the Legislature under the open records statute. Now, I wouldn’t expect such a bill to get anywhere. Individual lawmakers and legislative agencies actually are quite good about releasing records and other data from their offices, if only to avoid the appearance of trying to hide something from the public. But a number of lawmakers I’ve talked to don’t believe the open records law should apply to the Legislature, to protect those rare instances in which they choose not to share anything. They see such a law as intruding on the constitutional authority of individual lawmakers as elected officeholders (even though the same law already applies to county board of supervisors and city councils).

What’s interesting here is House Democrats decided last week to name Lujan as their new leader, replacing Phil Lopes of Tucson. So if Lujan keeps his pledge, he could give more visibility to a bill that requires the Arizona Legislature to release its records, instead of simply trusting lawmakers to do so.

GOV. JANET NAPOLITANO SPOKE IN JANUARY ON BEHALF OF FELLOW DEMOCRAT BARACK OBAMA, WHO IS NOW PRESIDENT-ELECT (Capitol Media Services file photo).

The countdown clock has begun on how long it takes President-Elect Barack Obama to name Arizona’s own Gov. Janet Napolitano to a Cabinet post. Unlike the presidential race of 2004, Napolitano backed a Democrat relatively early in this year’s primary season and her gamble has paid off. Just about everyone involved in Arizona politics expects Napolitano to be tabbed for a prominent position such as attorney general or homeland security secretary.

My only hestitation is Napolitano didn’t deliver Arizona to Obama either in the primaries or the general election. In fact, Sen. John McCain won his home state by a larger-than-expected margin. So there might be less pressure on Obama to offer Napolitano a critical position in his administration.

On the other hand, given that Arizona’s governor will face a nightmarish budget and a more conservative, Republican-controlled Legislature next year, Napolitano might be happy to accept even an obscure post in Washington, D.C.

I recently wrote in a print column that a Maricopa County Superior Court judge had declared unconstitutional a two-year-old Arizona law that allowed disputes between homeowner association boards and HOA members to be addressed by a state hearing officer. This was intended to be a more affordable and homeowner-friendly alternative to fighting an HOA board in court. The point of the column was to outline various possible options if that ruling stands. But the headline of the column was rather provocative, suggesting that I sided completely with the HOA industry in opposing any more government regulation. That brought out some real anger among both local readers and HOA activists across the country. Here’s an example of what they had to say to me from reader Melissa Hill:

“Before you wrote this article you should have investigated further into the issues surrounding HOAs and the folks that live in them. This is not simply a contractual issue. A few members of a neighborhood can band together and change the contract ‘rules.’ or contract terms, at any time without discussion or vote, as has happened in my neighborhood, and use scare tactics to force the neighbors into ‘compliance”’of these new contract terms, as they would be considered by (Scott) Carpenter.  While this is illegal under our existing documents, they do it because they know that the homeowners do not have the money to challenge them in a court of law.  In the real world we call that “bait and switch”, also known as FRAUD.

“The title of your article is downright irresponsible and shows your ignorance of the rampant misdoings in HOAs.  I’m a board member in my HOA, and I know what I’m talking about.  And my board president IS A LAWYER.  Mr. Carpenter has much to gain by leaving the system as it is. This is not a professional opinion that should carry much weight in a story about the true FACTS of the situation.”

And that was among the more polite emails I received (Melissa and I exchanged several additional emails of a more positive nature, and I respect her passion on this issue).

While doing my interviews, it was pointed out that a Superior Court judge doesn’t set precedent. So the hearing officer process might just continue even if it couldn’t be applied to this specific case. But another alert reader let me know that Scott Carpenter’s law firm already has requested that the judge’s ruling be applied to all future HOA cases, which essentially would block the hearing officer route entirely.

We’re still waiting to hear whether state Attorney General Terry Goddard will appeal the ruling.

The Valley’s National Public Radio affiliate, KJZZ-FM (91.5) recently invited me into the studio with morning news anchor Dennis Lambert for an interview about three Arizona ballot measures: Proposition 100, an constitutional amendment that would ban any taxes on the sale of real estate; Proposition 101, another amendment that would guarantee anyone’s right to pay for private health care from their own pockets; and Proposition 201, which would mandate 10-year warranties on new home construction. The interview was presented today during NPR’s Morning Edition, at about half of the length of the entire conservation (which is rather generous for a broadcast interview).

These initiatives are widely seen as “less sexy” than a constitutional ban on gay marriages or the measure pushed by the payday loan industry; and the details can be complicated. While the Tribune Editorial Board has taken a stand on all of the measures, I sought to give a balanced explanation about what they would do and outline the strongest arguments provided by those for and against them. Listen for yourself and let me know how I did.

     MESA MAYOR SCOTT SMITH

When Scott Smith took the mayor’s office in July, he had a goodly amount of optimism about what he could accomplish. He had a new council to work with and, despite the city’s fiscal challenges, some real opportunities ranging from the Riverview/Waveyard region to what’s on the horizon for Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport. The new council quickly agreed to a scaled-down version of a bond package and new property tax before city voters on Nov. 4. And he announced several promising changes in the business climate to launch his administration including expansion of Catepiller dealer Southwest Empire and a new Gaylord luxury resort.

What Smith couldn’t count on what the nationwide freeze in the credit markets in mid-September that put an even bigger brake on the national economy. Combined with already struggling Arizona situation, government tax revenues are taking a nose dive at state and local levels.

So Mesa’s on-going budget problems are going to move the forefront again, and likely will shape whatever legacy that Smith will leave the city. Tribune East Valley editor Patti Epler reported today that Police Chief George Gascon and other city department heads are sounding huge red alarms about coming budget cuts, and Smith only stoked the fire with his comments.

“We’re trying to get everybody in the mindset of not only where can we cut, but how do we do business and what services do we provide and where do we go from here,” Smith said. “We may have to make some basic changes in how we approach things. We need to at least start thinking that way. We don’t want to be caught off guard.”

Epler wasn’t able to learn any details about how big the budget cuts might be. But we can get a sense of what’s going on from neighboring Phoenix, where the City Council could be forced to shrink the general operating budget by more than 20 percent — after already making smaller spending reductions earlier this year.

By this time in 2009, Mesa’s city government could look a lot different, and be a lot smaller, than it is now.

GEN. DAVID RATACZAK (Photo courtesy of the Arizona National Guard)

Unlike the federal military services, the Arizona National Guard has a single person who commands all of the state military branches called the adjutant general. The man who has held that post since 1999, David Rataczak, announced this morning that he will retire in December after 43 years in the military.

A combat helicopter pilot from the Vietnam War, Rataczak was appointed to his post by then-Gov. Jane Dee Hull, a Republican. But he has been a faithful and able commander during the administration of Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat. Rataczak has managed Army and Air branches that have grown quite rapidly (by 60 percent) in terms of troops, armories and other buildings, and missions. The Air National Guard became a lead military agency to test and deploy the Predator combat drone, which has been used in nonviolent patrol missions along the Mexican border and in a variety of combat situations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But Rataczak has seen a fair share of controversy during this tenure. In 2000, Tribune investigative reporter Mark Flatten disclosed evidence that the Arizona National Guard was keeping the name of soliders on its books for months after they had left service in order to draw in more federal funding. The “ghost soldiers” series sparked some criticism, particulary within the military community. But the issue disappeared after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as federal funding jumped for the various state national guards in exchange for participating heavily in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Rataczak also found himself in a political showdown in the past two years with Sen. Jack Harper, R-Surprise, that nearly cost Rataczak his job. Harper was angry that Rataczak had previously refused to back the senator’s proposals for using National Guard troops in direct border patrol operations and potential detention of illegal immigrants. Operation Jump Start, which was funded by the Pentagon, relied on National Guard troops from Arizona and other states in a supporting role for the civilian Border Patrol. Harper used his position as a committee chairman to block Rataczak’s reappointment as adjutant general, and Harper relented only under enormous pressure.

I got to know Rataczak just a little bit when I was covering Napolitano a few years ago. The governor had traveled to Yuma for a regional military conference, so she was allowed to use a National Guard plane to make the trip. I was invited along, and it turned out Rataczak was Napolitano’s host for the day. The general admitted during a quiet moment that he was using the daylong trip to speak one-on-one with Napolitano about some of his ideas for the National Guard and about a couple of funding requests. Since the two have continued to work well together, I always assumed that Napolitano was pleased with what Rataczak had to say.

The Arizona Motor Vehicle Division can’t avoid it any more. The agency has to starting issues special license plates for people who oppose abortion, as the state already does for causes such as spraying and neutering pets and to support fallen police officers.

The U.S. Supreme Court refused this morning to consider an decision from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that says abortion opponents have a First Amendment right to their own specialty license plate.

 “Life-affirming expression is constitutionally protected just like any other speech,” said Peter Gentala, attorney for the Arizona Life Coalition, which requested the “Choose Life” plate in a news release today. “The Arizona Life Coalition’s message has been censored for over six years. Now it’s time for the License Plate Commission to act quickly to approve the plates so they can go into production as the law requires.” 

It’s probably hard for some people to wrap their heads around, but I wrote more than a year ago that Arizona was discriminating against pro-life groups by refusing to issue such a plate after had patiently followed all of the rules. Now, the state has to start selling the plates, or get out of the business of these specialty issue plates. The Tribune Editorial Board has called for the latter option, but I doubt that will happen.

Forget what’s happening in Washington. Arizonans should be more focused on the escalating budget crisis right in our own backyard. Gov. Janet Napolitano is hoping (praying? tossing pennies into wishing wells?) that the funding shortfall for the 3-month-old fiscal year will be only $320 million, but is willing to consider a worst-case scenario of $850 milllion. That’s after Napolitano and the Legislature adopted a budget in late June that erased a shortfall predicted at the time to be $1.9 billion.

However, state lawmakers were told Tuesday during a special briefing that tax revenues appear to coming in at about $100 million less than state spending every month. That means the potential deficit will surge past Napolitano’s optimistic projection by, oh, well, this Monday.

Unlike a year ago, Napolitano appears to understand the scope and the depth of the budget crisis. She sounds like she’s riding hard on state agencies to limit expenses, although it would easier to see that if her budget office could produce some detailed numbers to demonstrate concrete savings. She’s also working on some rather inventive ideas, such as selling or leasing the Arizona Lottery to a private operator and accepting a chunk of cash from tobacco companies now, in exchange for reducing their overall payments under the 1999 master tobacco settlement.

But those solutions are temporary at best, providing only a one-time infusion of cash. The whole purpose of Wednesday’s special meeting for lawmakers and legislative candidates was to drive home the point that as bad as things are right now, they probably will get worse in 2009. Private economist Elliott Pollack repeated his recent presentation to state business leaders with a blizzard of facts about the economic slowdown and he predicted a real recovery won’t reach Arizona probably until 2011.

The real challenge, according to top legislative budget analyst Richard Stavneak, is Napolitano and the Legislature have crafted a $10.7 billion general fund budget, but the economy seems to be able to only support spending on a stable basis at $8.7 billlion.

The state has $120 million in savings, and then the money tree is pretty close to leafless for this year and next. And more than half of the budget (primarily K-12 education and health care spending) can’t be touched by lawmakers because they are protected by voter-approved formulas and spending mandates. If lawmakers immediately adopted a 20 percent budget cut for every state agency that they do have say over, it would save only $400 million, Stavneak said. And such cuts would have to include state prisons, the Department of Public Safety, universities and community colleges.

That’s why Sen. Thayer Verschoor, R-Gilbert, said Wednesday the Legislature should be looking at a special statewide election as soon as January to ask voters for relief from the mandates. Lawmakers likely would seek permission to temporarily cut back on state spending for school districts and to benefits provided by AHCCCS.

The only other route out of the crisis would be higher taxes. It’s pretty much guaranteed that the temporary suspension of the business personal property tax will be allowed to expire — bringing in $250 million a year starting in 2010. But there likely won’t be any other serious tax proposals, despite complaints from some Democrats and special interest groups, unless or until Napolitano decides to throw her political capital behind such an unpopular move.

I learned this morning that the conspicuous absence of House Speaker Jim Weiers, R-Ariz., from a commission created by Gov. Janet Napolitano to plan Arizona’s centennial celebration was his choice, not the governor’s. In fact, Weiers couldn’t bother to return repeated phone calls from Napolitano’s office inviting him to join the commission as did all living former governors, Senate President Tim Bee, R-Tucson, Senate Minority Leader Marsha Arzberger, D-Willcox, and House Minority Leader Phil Lopes, D-Tucson.

I tried to speak with spokespeople for both Napolitano and Weiers before writing my original blog item, but they didn’t return my phone call until after it was posted. This morning, House Republican spokesman Barrett Marson said Weiers didn’t see any point to serving on the governor’s commission as another already existed. I believe Marson is referring to one or more committees working with the state Historical Advisory Commission, which previously was designated by law to coordinate planning for the celebration of the state’s 100th birthday.

“I don’t think we need two agencies to do one job,” Marson said.

Hmm, Napolitano would have had an opportunity to explain why she was creating a new, more high-profile group to take the lead, if only Weiers had taken her phone call. One important reason, as I mentioned in my previous post, is the state needs to raise private cash quickly because of the state’s budget problems. If Napolitano can’t do it with the group of people she has assembled for her centennial commission, I’m not sure it can be done.

Weiers might have a point about Napolitano bypassing the existing government infrastructure (which she previously supported) and creating something new that she has more control over. But Weiers is supposed to be a state leader, and he comes off as petulant and petty when he couldn’t take five minutes to discuss the issue with the governor or her staff.