|
|
Thompson, Schapira, Burton-Cahill excel
Arizona Republic
October 1, 2008
Tempe's and south Scottsdale's legislative
District 17 is one of the most competitive in the state, which should make
the three Democratic incumbents nervous. Voters have a habit of ousting
incumbents in this district.
House race
There's another reason that the House incumbents, David Schapira
and Ed Ableser, should be nervous. Former Republican state Rep. Mark
Thompson, who was a thoughtful and constructive legislator, is running to
regain his seat. Thompson was defeated in 2004 after being targeted by GOP
conservatives for supporting Gov. Janet Napolitano's full-day kindergarten
initiative and voting for a state budget they opposed.
Republican Wes Waddle, a political newcomer, also is running.
During his single term in the Legislature, Thompson became an effective
champion for Arizona State University, spearheading a bill that secured
nearly $400 million for new research facilities. Thompson also worked on
other education issues as well as health care. Chairman of the board of
The Centers for Habilitation in Tempe, Thompson says he intends to
represent interests of Arizona's developmentally disabled if elected.
Schapira, a teacher, and Ableser, a family counselor, have
championed public education, the environment and expanded health coverage
for low-income workers. Schapira is perhaps best known for his
successful legislation requiring first-time DUI convicts to have ignition
interlock devices installed in their cars. That controversial bill's
success illustrates Schapira's willingness and ability to work
across party lines to get things accomplished.
Ableser was appointed to the Senate seat that opened when Harry Mitchell
resigned to run for the U.S. House in 2006. Ableser ran for the House that
year, allowing Burton Cahill, who was originally elected to the House in
2000, to run for the Senate seat.
Ableser has done a passable job, but his complaints about legislative
partisanship have grown tiresome. We might chalk it up to mere naiveté if
not for Ableser's active participation last session in a blatantly
partisan maneuver purportedly to secure funds to fix air-quality problems
at Corona del Sol High School but clearly aimed to embarrass Republican
colleagues, who already had committed to help Corona.
Waddle, who lacks a track record of local civic involvement, describes
himself as a moderate Republican with an interest in health care,
balancing the budget and securing the border.
Voters in District 17 have been competently served by the Democratic
incumbents, especially David Schapira. They would be even better
served, in our view, by re-electing Schapira and electing Mark
Thompson.
Senate race
Sen. Meg Burton-Cahill is challenged by Jesse Hernandez, who lost a 2004
bid to unseat then-state Sen. Harry Mitchell.
Like Schapira and Ableser, Burton-Cahill has championed education,
the environment and health care. Although not an eloquent public speaker,
she has a reputation for studying issues and listening to constituents.
Hernandez is articulate and up to speed on issues. A longtime advocate of
greater involvement by Hispanics in politics, he's not shy about wading
into the political arena.
But the Clean Elections Commission slapped him with a $1,190 fine in 2005
for sloppy bookkeeping in his campaign against Mitchell. And the following
year, a group Hernandez headed was fined $8,600 for mailing a hit piece
against then-Tempe Councilman Len Copple just before the city election
without notifying Copple, as required by state law.
The Republic recommends that voters stick with Sen. Meg Burton-Cahill.
[Return to top]
Up Close with Rep. David Schapira
By Jim Small
Arizona Capitol Times
June 20, 2008
David Schapira was just 26 years old when he was elected to the
Arizona Legislature. Considering the state Constitution requires all
members to be at least 25 years old, it’s rare for someone that young to
be sent to the Capitol. It hasn’t been easy, the Tempe Democrat says,
earning the respect of his colleagues and proving that his youth was not
what defined him.
Of course, he hasn’t had it easy ever.
Born with cancer in his face, Schapira underwent his first surgery
before he celebrated his first birthday. A childhood of treatments and
surgeries followed to deal with the cancer that kept cropping up. No doubt
coping with life-and-death issues as a child prepared him for adversity at
the Legislature.
Schapira spoke with Arizona Capitol Times June 18 about reforming
the state’s educational system, battling cancer and the difference in how
Democrats have been treated this year.
I know you’ve still got a few bills up for consideration in the Senate.
I’m going to go ahead a guess they’re education bills.
Yeah. Of course, my AIMS augmentation bill passed earlier in the session.
My teacher loan forgiveness program tweak is over there right now and
we’re trying to get that through. I’ve got my pupils with chronic health
problems bill over there, and my NCLB opt-out bill.
If those three bills get signed, I’ll have four education bills signed
this year.
Let’s talk about that last one first. Why should the state even consider
opting out of No Child Left Behind?
I think it is a failed program. Unfortunately, there were too many parts
that were left behind when they drafted the legislation. Also, they left
the money behind, which is a significant problem, and there is a huge
deficit — billions of dollars — that the federal government has authorized
and committed to give the states for education implementation and,
unfortunately, that money didn’t follow.
Likewise, some of the federal mandates are brutal. Some of those federal
mandates as far as mandates on what “adequately yearly progress” means
were created in a vacuum by a bunch of politicians in Washington.
Unfortunately, they’re not taking into consideration what happens in the
real world in education.
It will cost the state $600 million or so to opt out, right?
Possibly. There’s a lot of us, including some of the more conservative
members who are co-sponsors of the bill that believe the federal
government would probably not withhold that funding. I mean, that’s going
to be a pretty politically unpopular thing for them to do, to tell the
Arizona taxpayers that, despite the fact we’ve put in our fair share in
tax revenue that they’re not going to give it back to us for education.
That’s going to be a pretty tough choice for them to make if they’re going
to withhold $600 million from Arizona students.
If they do, then, obviously, we as a state will ensure that our education
system is not held responsible for that and we will have enough money for
compensating for that for our students.
AIMS augmentation has already been signed. Why was that an important bill
for this year?
I think the biggest thing with AIMS augmentation is it’s something we have
experience with for the last two years. The biggest thing is that it
brings fairness to AIMS on the whole. It essentially rewards hard-working
students who have done well on their coursework, that are still required
to achieve a certain score on the exam. It allows those students to still
graduate.
They have to take the test every time that it’s offered, they have to do
tutoring, so we’re not talking about lazy kids. We’re talking about
hard-working students that have done well in their coursework and deserve
to graduate and, in many cases, go to college.
The augmentation will phase out over a few years, right?
It doesn’t phase out — it’s permanent. It phases down. It will go from 25
(percent) to 15 to 5. Then it will stay at 5 permanent. Most people’s
estimates are that 5 percent is probably — the vast majority of students
that are using AIMS augmentation are in that 5 percent.
Hopefully, it’s fewer and fewer students each year, not just because of
the phase down, but because we have fewer students that need it. But I
don’t anticipate it being too drastic or different unless we make some
drastic changes in our education system.
Does the state have a problem with teacher retention?
Certainly.
What does the state need to do to fix it?
First and foremost, it’s like any business. If you offer a good benefits
package, decent salary and solid work conditions, you’re going to attract
good people to your industry and you’re going to retain them in their
jobs.
We’re not offering those things right now. We’re offering teachers low
salaries, benefits that aren’t as good as they used to be. It used to be
that if you talked about federal or state benefits, it would be, “That’s
great — at least you have good benefits.”
And the working conditions are not great, either. You talk about the
looming threat of school takeovers and No Child Left Behind. You talk
about the fact that class sizes are much higher than they need to be, and
that’s not a condition that any teacher should have to work under and not
a good learning environment for students.
What can the state do to address those issues?
The obvious one is improve those conditions — reduce class sizes, make
sure that teachers are getting the best benefits state government has to
offer and make sure that they are getting a respectable wage. We need to
treat teachers as professionals.
People down here talk about running education as a business or running
government like a business all the time. Well, we’re not, by any means or
stretch of the imagination, running education like a business in this
state. My family’s been in business here for 55 years. I am a small
business owner. I can tell you that no successful business would be run
this way.
Don’t teacher salaries seem like more of a local control issue than a
state issue?
Not really. You’re looking at what districts are having to do even before
the revenue shortfalls — Kyrene had to cut arts programs four or five
years ago. Districts have financial issues across the state, in rural and
urban areas, and they’re having to address programmatic cuts. When you’re
talking about programmatic cuts, obviously there’s no money lying around
to address teachers’ salaries.
Likewise, we put a lot of mandates on schools. We give districts money,
but, as you know, we attach a lot of requirements to that money, to how it
has to be spent. We are taking discretion away constantly from school
districts.
One thing that’s different in the K-12 education system than the higher
education system is they get to spend what we give them. They can do
overrides and bonding and other things, but only up to a certain limit,
which is statutorily limited. They can only spend as much as we allow them
to spend. They can’t raise any extra money beyond those caps.
At least in the higher education system — and I don’t think this is the
greatest idea — they can just raise tuition. They at least have another
place they can go to pull in more revenue.
Did you ever think you’d still be in the middle of June with three bills
still alive in the Senate?
I guess if you told me that I was going to have four bills that were going
to have a chance of making it this year, I probably could have guessed
that it was going to be pretty late in the year, because of the letter
that comes after my name.
The sad part is that two of those bills are fairly non-controversial. One
of them I think has had almost no ‘no’ votes. For that bill to still be
held up at this point in the process…I don’t know why that bill is still
being held up at this point in the session.
What about just in general — it seems Democrats have gotten a lot more of
their bills heard, if not voted on.
I think the first is the most common occurrence. I think if you talk to
the average Democratic member, they probably don’t have any more bills
signed this year than last year. But you’re right, there was definitely
the opportunity to have them heard this year that wasn’t there last year.
There were bills that (Rep. Mark) Anderson heard of mine (in the Education
Committee) that he completely disagreed with that he probably wouldn’t
have heard last year, but he heard them out of a courtesy to me. The bills
passed and one of them already got signed and another might get signed.
There’s definitely a difference this year from last year.
Last year, you were responsible for a law that requires ignition interlock
devices for first-time drunk drivers. What do you think of the DUI bill
that was ultimately signed into law?
I think it’s a perfect example of — what’s the old saying about sausage
and lawmaking? At the end of the day, I think the sausage tastes pretty
good and it worked out pretty well. The piece of legislation that went to
the governor’s desk was probably the best possible compromise and best
wording that we could have asked for.
How important was it to keep that interlock provision in the law?
It’s important to me, obviously, because it’s a good program and it’s
making a significant difference. Two weeks ago, I was at the Mothers
Against Drunk Driving annual dinner and they gave me their Legislator of
the Year award, and they were talking about how statistics are changing.
There’s a 17-percent decrease in the number of alcohol-related fatalities
on the road. I think interlock, among other things, is making a serious
difference.
So, you got the MADD Legislator of the Year. You also got the same award
from the American Cancer Society, right?
I did. And the NHTSA, the US Department of Transportation, gives out a
public service award. They flew me to Portland to accept that one. That
was cool. I got the Arizona Students’ Association legislator of the year.
So, not too bad for my first term, I think,
I wasn’t trying to get any awards, but I guess I just ran some legislation
that people were happy with.
Let’s talk about the Cancer Society award for a second. There are very few
people around here who have a personal experience with cancer in their own
lives as you do. Tell me a little bit about that.
Well, as it’s been reported before, I was actually born with a congenital
cancer on my cheek. I wear the scar proudly as a badge of honor, having
beaten it four times. I went through my childhood having surgeries on it
every four years. Right after I was born I had surgery, four years old,
eight years old, 12 years old. My last surgery was a laser surgery when I
was 16 to repair some of the tissue damage.
I think it teaches you something about the value of life. What the
interesting thing was is I didn’t realize that cancer was something that
was potentially deadly when I was a kid. Cancer was a way of life for me.
People talk about how that must have been tough growing up. Well, I don’t
know any different. I essentially had cancer cells in my body for the
first 12 years of my life.
Hopefully, I don’t have any today. As far as I know, I’ve been cancer-free
for 16 years, which is a pretty good accomplishment, I think.
You’re the youngest of the 90 legislators. Does that carry any kind of
pressure? Is it something that comes up with your colleagues?
Oh yeah, when I first came down here, it was interesting. When we had our
first caucus meeting, we went around the room and introduced ourselves and
said where we were from and all that. Jack Brown talked about coming to
the House in ’63. Steve Farley said something about what he was doing in
’63 — I think he said he was in kindergarten or second grade. (Editor’s
note: Farley was born in 1962.) I was thinking about it, and I was like,
my dad was in kindergarten in 1963. It kind of brought to my mind that
there is a broad span age-wise of people in the Legislature.
I think that before someone gets to know you, the look at you and see what
they see and judge you based on that, and to a large extent, I think Ed
(Ableser) and I were both judged for being very young. When we got here,
we were both in our 20s.
People definitely treated me differently — until my DUI bill passed. When,
for the first time, language that I drafted became law, I think people
started looking at me a little bit differently and treating me as an
equal. I think maybe I earned their respect. So, this year, I have less of
a problem with it.
But people in the community — it’s interesting when they find out I’m in
the Legislature. When I’m knocking on doors, talking to constituents, the
comment I always get is, “You’re so young!”
I think people typically think that I’m in my early 30s, so when they find
out that I’m still in my 20s, they’re even more miffed by it. But they get
over it when you start talking about policies and ideas and judge you on
your ideas, not your age.
[Return to top]
Legislators wonder if AIMS is due for overhaul
By Mary Jo Pitzl
The Arizona Republic
May 15, 2008
Lawmakers delivered Wednesday on a plan that will let thousands of
high-school seniors graduate this month without passing the AIMS test.
But the test itself could be up for examination, as lawmakers expressed
growing disdain for the high-stakes test.
"We are completely ready for a change in what we do (with AIMS)," said
Rep. Rich Crandall, R-Mesa.
Rep. David Schapira, D-Tempe, suggested the state might want to use
the ACT or SAT college-entrance exams as a prerequisite for high-school
graduation instead of AIMS.
Supporters and opponents of Schapira's bill that would allow
exceptions to the AIMS graduation rule said the test needs a tune-up, if
not a complete overhaul.
Rep. Sam Crump, R-Anthem, was among the Republican lawmakers who voted
against House Bill 2008 because they felt it "dumbed down" Arizona's
education standards.
But, Crump said later, lawmakers are starting to question why the test has
to be tied to high-school graduation. Perhaps there are other ways of
indicating a student's proficiency, or lack thereof, upon completing high
school, he said. For example, a student's diploma could note his or her
class rank.
The complaints came as the House approved the bill that will allow
high-school seniors to boost their flagging AIMS scores by having their
classroom grades factored in.
The action means that up to 6,000 seniors likely will get to walk with
their class during graduation ceremonies, which start today at high
schools throughout the Valley. Gov. Janet Napolitano said she will sign
the bill, although no action had been taken by late Wednesday.
"My feeling is they ought to get their diplomas," she told reporters
before the final vote was taken.
There is a catch, but it is likely only a technicality.
The bill didn't get enough votes to take effect as soon as Napolitano
acts. Instead, it will become law 90 days after the legislative sessions
end, most likely in September.
However, state schools Superintendent Tom Horne said he is advising
schools to allow seniors who meet the requirements of the new legislation
to walk with their graduating class. When the bill officially becomes law,
students can get their diplomas through the mail.
The delay shouldn't affect a senior's ability to enroll in college.
At Arizona State University, current policy allows freshmen to submit
documents that verify they graduated from high school by the end of the
fall semester, according to the office of Undergraduate Admissions Dean
Martha Byrd.
The bill outlines alternative requirements that allow students who fail
the AIMS test to graduate. If a student takes the test every time it is
offered, takes remedial courses in the subject areas in which he or she
failed and has good grades in their regular coursework, seniors this year
and next can boost their AIMS score by 25 percent.
For the 2010 and 2011 graduation years, the score can be increased by 15
percent, and for 2012 and beyond, a 5 percent increase.
Crandall was among the "no" votes, all cast by Republicans. He said it is
important to send a message that a high-stakes test should not be diluted.
But more important, he added, the state should examine the value of the
AIMS test.
From the tone of Wednesday's debate, it appears he will have support.
"If we don't like the AIMS test, let's be intellectually honest and do
away with it," said Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, R-Gilbert. House Democrats, who
do not like the mandatory test, applauded heartily.
Farnsworth quickly added that he is not advocating an end to AIMS, but his
motion for a round of Republican applause in favor of keeping the test
drew only a half-hearted ripple of clapping.
Horne said he will oppose any move to alter the AIMS test.
"If you keep reinventing the wheel, you end with something rectangular and
you can't move the wagon forward," he said.
[Return to top]
Ariz. lawmakers seek to ease teacher crunch
by expanding program
By Nicole Santa Cruz
Arizona Daily Star
March 29, 2008
When Sam Moody, 39, a junior high school teacher, moved from rural
Missouri to Clifton in August, he lived in his classroom for two weeks.
"In the morning, I would put my cot in my car and teach for the day," he
said. These days, Moody is living in a mobile home behind the school, he
said.
Even Bentley Terry, the principal and superintendent of Clifton Unified
School District, said after his arrival less than a year ago in Clifton, a
town of 2,000 in Greenlee County, he stayed in a hotel room for three
months.
"It affects our schools because we are trying to bring teachers in," he
said. "How can you bring someone in when you tell them, 'We don't have a
house for you?' "
Now the Legislature is working to address the problem of teacher shortages
at the university level. A bill that would extend an existing program to
include rural areas has passed the House and is slated to be heard in the
Senate's Higher Education Committee next week.
The program, dubbed the Mathematics Science and Special Education Teacher
Student Loan Forgiveness Program, which is overseen by the Arizona Board
of Regents, grants Arizona university students a loan to pay for tuition
for up to five years if they'll agree to teach math, science or special
education in Arizona.
Recipients must complete one year of teaching in Arizona plus one
additional year for each year of monetary support received. The tuition
loans will be forgiven for those teachers meeting the requirements.
The tweaking of the existing program, which has the capacity for 500
people, would allow a participant to teach any subject in a geographic
area experiencing a teacher shortage, said Rep. David Schapira, D-Tempe.
Last year, the Legislature allocated $2.2 million for the program, which
Schapira says will be protected in lieu of budget cuts and sweeps
for this fiscal year. He is hoping the same will happen for the next
fiscal year, despite a projected multibillion-dollar budget deficit.
Teacher shortages in math, science and special education are nothing new,
but shortages in rural counties can affect such other subjects as social
studies and English and result in larger class sizes, Schapira
said.
"You end up sticking a whole lot of kids in one class," he said. "It's
difficult not only for the teacher but the students as well."
The program started this year. Student participation was logged at 63, and
the Board of Regents is advertising in anticipation for the fall. So far,
the program has 27 applicants, said Mark Denkey, assistant executive
director for the regents.
Schapira said rural areas are exactly why this bill is important,
but metropolitan areas can't be forgotten either.
"Some inner-city districts have the problem of cross-curriculum shortage,"
he added.
Ann Parker, director of admissions for the University of Arizona College
of Education, agreed. "To tell you the truth, there's a teacher shortage
everywhere," she said. "Even Tucson has difficulty recruiting people to
teach in its schools."
The education college is also mirroring a national and state trend of
dwindling application numbers for ed majors, which was down about 5
percent from fall 2003 to fall 2005, according to university numbers.
Dan Anderson, director of institutional research for the Board of Regents,
said that from 2006 to 2007, the number of education degrees awarded by
Arizona's universities dropped by 142.
[Return to top]
Legislators craft Ariz.
schools' exit from No Child Left Behind
By Howard Fischer
East Valley Tribune
March 27, 2008
|
 |
The state House voted Wednesday to yank
Arizona schools from federal No Child Left Behind regulations - but
only if it doesn't cost too much. On a voice vote, lawmakers gave
preliminary approval to the measure that says the state will
withdraw from the controversial Bush administration program after
the 2009-10 school year.
That move follows complaints about No
Child Left Behind, including from state lawmakers who object to what
they see as federal meddling in a state issue and educators who
question the program's validity. |
|
Click here to watch David's
Ch 8 Horizon interview about opting out of NCLB
|
But HB2392, crafted by Rep. David Schapira, D-Tempe, would not be
automatic.
It first requires the state Department of Education to figure out how much
money Arizona schools would lose in federal aid by withdrawing from the
program. Schapira figures that exceeds $600 million a year.
That study also would compute the savings to the state from no longer
having to comply with the various federal regulations and reporting and
testing requirements, a figure Schapira estimates "could be in the
hundreds of millions."
Withdrawal from the program would happen only when legislators come up
with the money to fund the difference.
The 2001 law was designed to ensure that all students are making
year-to-year progress. That is shown through test scores.
Schools whose scores don't measure up have to come up with improvement
plans. In more severe cases, they actually have to change staff or
curriculum - or potentially have to get rid of the entire faculty.
"It could have been great," Schapira said, "if they had stayed out of the
classroom - I don't think the government should be involved in curriculum
issues - and if they had funded it."
He said that $600 million is not really "new" money but simply a different
way of handing out the federal dollars Arizona schools were getting
before.
State schools superintendent Tom Horne is particularly critical of how the
federal government measures progress. He said there are 253 ways for a
school to be listed as failing - and that falling short on even one of
those 253 categories means a school is not performing.
Horne said there are other flaws, including factoring in the test scores
of students who come to school not knowing English.
[Return to top]
Students graduation depend on bill
Wickenburg Sun
February 27, 2008
Thousands of students will not graduate this May if the legislature fails
to approve House Bill 2008.
Rep. David Schapira of Tempe sponsored House Bill 2008 to renew an
alternative graduation requirement for students who nearly achieve a
passing score on the Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS)
test.
Thousands of students each year have used AIMS augmentation.
AIMS augmentation allows students to still graduate if they pass all
coursework and credit, take the AIMS test each time it is offered, and
participate in the academic remediation program. The fulfillment of all
these requirements can only augment 25 percent of a student’s AIMS score.
The augmentation program expired in January.
“This is an urgent issue. As a high school teacher, I met countless
students who proved themselves proficient in course work, but had
difficulty performing on high-stakes tests. Many of these students are
college-bound,” Rep. Schapira said. “If the legislature fails to approve
this bill, thousands of students will not graduate. By depriving a
hard-working student of a high school diploma, we are putting their future
and quality of life in jeopardy.”
House Bill 2008 has an emergency clause to allow it to go into effect as
soon as the bill is signed. The House Education Committee approved House
Bill 2008 on Feb. 6.
[Return to top]
ASU student-penned bill on
tuition deserves to be heard
East Valley Tribune
December 30, 2007
Most college students who study state government take only an academic
interest in the arcane and sometimes maddening procedures behind how a
legislative bill becomes law.
But Chris Gustafson, a junior at Arizona State University, has reason to
take it personally when lawmakers convene Jan. 14. He wrote one of the
bills that’s expected to be introduced to seek limits on future tuition
increases at all three state universities.
The Arizona Capitol Times reported Dec. 7 that Gustafson was a student
this fall in an ASU class taught by Rep. David Schapira, D-Tempe.
Schapira used his inside access to provide the class with an
up-close look at how the Legislature writes and passes laws. Gustafson and
his fellow students even spent a day on the floor of the House of
Representatives debating and voting on various measures as if they were
lawmakers themselves, the Capitol Times reported.
Schapira’s ultimate motivation for his students to perform well was
a promise that he would pick one of the mock bills approved by the class
to introduce at the actual Legislature. And Schapira selected
Gustafson’s proposal to require a two-thirds vote, instead of a simple
majority, by the Arizona Board of Regents when it wants to raise tuition
rates by more than 5 percent or student fees by more than $200.
Bills are almost never approved in the same form that they are introduced.
But Gustafson told the Capitol Times he hopes to at least influence
whatever happens next year.
“My end goal for this would be everybody to come together and, instead of
having two tuition proposals (from the university presidents and the
students), having one proposal everyone can agree with,” he said.
The board of regents votes almost unanimously on budget issues. So
Gustafson’s proposal might not be enough to rein in tuition rates that
have doubled in the past six years. But legislative approval would be one
small sign that state officials have heard the concerns of financially
strapped students and their families.
[Return to top]
Large tuition hikes OK'd for ASU, UA, NAU
By Anne Ryman
The Arizona Republic
December 7, 2007
The cost of a college education is rising sharply next year for new
students at two of Arizona's three state universities, but families will
have more predictability over future costs.
Arizona State University will hike tuition and mandatory fees for freshmen
and transfer students by nearly 14 percent, the largest increase of the
three universities. Tuition and fees will go from nearly $5,000 to $5,659
next year, but increases will be capped at 5 percent for five years.
Northern Arizona University's Flagstaff campus will raise tuition and fees
12 percent for new students and lock in the tuition rate for four years.
The University of Arizona is not offering fixed tuition, but its increase
is slightly more modest. UA undergraduate students will pay 9.8 percent
more in tuition and fees next year.
The Arizona Board of Regents approved the increases for the 2008-09 school
year on Thursday at its meeting at ASU's Tempe campus. The increases at
ASU and NAU are a bold departure from how the board has set tuition in the
past. Most universities adjust tuition for all students each year. The
fixed rates in future years apply to tuition but not mandatory fees.
The tuition rates are for in-state undergraduate students. Out-of-state
and graduate students also face varying tuition increases.
Students opposed the increases. They asked the board to freeze tuition and
lobby the Arizona Legislature for additional money.
On Thursday, they marched around campus shouting, "Freeze tuition, freeze
tuition, freeze tuition now!" Later, dressed in blue T-shirts emblazoned
with the same words, they packed the regents meeting.
Members of the Arizona Students' Association, a statewide group, worry the
large increases will create a financial burden for freshmen.
"This is a huge blow to affordability for Arizona," association Chairwoman
Lindsay Bayuk said.
Returning ASU and NAU students also will be paying more next year, but
those increases are modest at 7 and 8 percent.
Still, some students wonder how they'll keep up.
ASU sophomore Jessica Aguilar, 19, took out a loan last year, and this
year, she found enough grants and scholarships to cover her tuition.
She lives at home to save money and works part time in retail. She spends
winter breaks between semesters looking for scholarships for the following
year.
"It's a constant worry," she said.
The cost of attending a state school is below the national average and
should remain so even with the increase, university officials said.
Tuition and fees nationwide average $6,185 this year at four-year public
universities.
UA, which has the most expensive tuition and fees for undergraduates,
charges $5,037 this year.
Last year, all three universities raised tuition 5 percent. The
double-digit hikes are an attempt to bring Arizona universities more in
line with other public universities, officials say.
Regent Robert Bulla was among the majority supporting the increase, saying
even though tuition has risen, financial aid available to students also
has gone up.
He objected to the student proposal to freeze tuition and ask the Arizona
Legislature to make up the difference.
"I can't support putting pressure on the Legislature," he said.
Yet, the state Legislature may take steps to place more limits on
tuition-setting.
Rep. David Schapira, D-Tempe, plans to sponsor legislation in
January that would require a two-thirds vote of the Arizona Board of
Regents to boost tuition more than 5 percent or increase student fees more
than $200 a year.
The board now needs a majority. The bill also would give both student
regents a vote. Currently, only one of the students can vote.
The idea came from one of Schapira's students at ASU, 20-year-old
Chris Gustafson, who took a political-science class that Schapira
teaches. The class assignment included writing a bill on a topic the
student is passionate about and that is feasible.
Schapira and House Speaker Jim Weiers chose Gustafson's bill.
"This bill doesn't cost us anything," Schapira said. "It gives a
little more control to the folks who are most impacted by the increases,
and that's students."
Gustafson is thrilled.
"I just think that's responsible government," Gustafson said about
requiring a two-thirds vote.
Although critics may say the bill represents another legislative mandate,
Gustafson still leaves tuition in the board's hands. He plans to lobby for
the bill this spring.
[Return to top]
|
New
volley against smoking
By Amanda J. Crawford
The Arizona Republic
November 30, 2007
It's the next front in the war on secondhand smoke: a ban on lighting
up in cars with kids.
Three states and Puerto Rico have passed such laws, and Arizona could
be next.
An Arizona lawmaker has proposed making |
Click here to watch the ABC 15 story
on outlawing smoking in cars with kids |
|
smoking in a vehicle with anyone 17 and
younger a crime that can get drivers pulled over and lead to fines of $50
or more per child.
"We already protect children from child abuse," said Rep. David
Schapira, who is proposing the new law, the first bill filed in the
House of Representatives in anticipation of the upcoming legislative
session. "I think if you are smoking in a vehicle . . . to me that is
child abuse."
The bill pits private-property rights against the state's desire to
protect children from secondhand smoke. Similar concerns were raised about
a statewide smoking ban that went into effect in April and forbids smoking
in most indoor public places.
Some smokers and non-smokers alike said they think the idea of protecting
kids is laudable, but they worry that it is a government intrusion on
individual liberty.
"The whole idea of individual freedom and rights is called into play when
you start thinking about how they will regulate what we do in our own
cars," said Paul Jungel, a 57-year-old non-smoker from north-central
Phoenix. An elementary-school teacher and grandfather, Jungel said he
hopes most parents are smart enough to decide not to smoke in the car with
their kids without a law dictating their behavior.
"Next," he said, "they will want to legislate what we do in our front
rooms and in our bathrooms."
The California law
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a similar ban into law last
month. The California law goes into effect Jan. 1 and makes smoking with
minors a secondary offense, which means police can enforce it only if they
pull over a vehicle for another reason, like speeding. Violations carry
fines of up to $100.
Louisiana and Arkansas passed forms of the ban last year. In Arkansas, the
law applies only to cars carrying children young enough to require a car
seat. The $25 fine can be waived if the violator shows proof of
participation in a smoking-cessation program. In Louisiana, the law allows
fines up to $150 and applies only to children 11 and younger.
Sixteen other states, including Arizona, have considered a form of the
ban, too, said Amy Winterfeld, a health-policy analyst for the National
Conference of State Legislatures.
"As people become aware of the health effects and conscious to the fact
that children don't have a choice in the matter, they are considering
public-health measures to help reduce children's exposure to secondhand
smoke," Winterfeld said.
Schapira, D-Tempe, introduced the same measure in Arizona in the
past legislative session, but it went nowhere. He said he thinks he has a
better chance this time after learning the ropes at the Capitol.
Schapira successfully pushed a new state law that requires
ignition-interlock devices for DUI offenders.
He also thinks public support for the statewide smoking ban will help.
Voters approved the ban last fall, despite a well-financed attempt by the
tobacco and beverage industries to pass an alternative ban that would have
exempted bars.
This proposed ban is the logical next step, he said.
"I think that Arizonans are definitely ahead of the curve," Schapira
said. "We understand secondhand smoke is dangerous, and we are doing
something about it."
Secondhand smoke
A study last year by the Harvard School of Public Health found that
smoking in a car, even with the driver's window slightly open, created
hazardous levels of secondhand smoke that could be harmful to children.
Children are more vulnerable to secondhand smoke, which can trigger
respiratory illnesses.
Lisa Copain, 33, of Surprise, is a smoker. She also is the mother of four,
but she says she would never smoke in the car with her kids.
"Anyone who smokes in cars with kids should be hung," she declared angrily
while puffing a cigarette during a smoke break in downtown Phoenix.
A few feet away, another smoker saw the proposed law much differently. She
also is a mom and believes the government shouldn't pass laws dictating
people's private lives.
"When they pay my truck payment, they can tell me what to do in my truck,"
said Kris Rauer, 28, of Phoenix. She said she always rolls down the window
if she smokes with her two children in her vehicle. "Don't they think
police have their hands full with other things?"
[Return to top]
An eye on the needle
The Arizona Republic
November 15, 2007
It's your choice if you want to wear a dragon on your arm. Not our
business.
But a dirty tattoo parlor can spread disease, and that makes the
cleanliness of these places the state's business.
Arizona should regulate them.
Consider that the Red Cross will not accept blood donations from someone
for a year after he or she gets a tattoo in an unlicensed parlor. The
danger of infection is too great.
Consider that the Centers for Disease Control recommend people seek out
licensed parlors because dozens of people have caught the potentially
deadly, antibiotic-resistant infection MRSA in the unlicensed kind.
Hepatitis and HIV are other infections you can get if the parlor you walk
into takes shortcuts with cleanliness.
Coconino County began regulating tattoo parlors in 2001 in the interest of
public safety.
The Legislature should set down rules on a statewide basis.
Interestingly, the push to do so comes not from the public, but from
Valley tattoo-parlor owners. They argue it could hurt their business if
the increasing popularity of tattoos results in a proliferation of poorly
run parlors. It may also be a play to regulate out competition, a bad
reason for government scrutiny of any business. If we regulate tattoo
parlors, it should be done strictly to protect public health, not
toprotect businesses from new competition.
Will Humble, assistant director of the Arizona Department of Health
Services, said licensing could make the process safer, but it would not
eliminate all the danger. By its nature, tattooing results in people
leaving the shop with an open wound. If they don't keep it clean during
the healing process, they could easily get an infection.
At that level, it's up to the buyer to beware.
But at the point when needles pierce the skin, customers ought to be
assured that sanitary practices are mandated and monitored.
Humble said Coconino County's ordinance was easy to implement, and that
counties would likely be delegated the duty of implementing a statewide
regulation, as well. The funding to make it happen could come from
licensing fees.
Rep. David Schapira, D-Tempe, plans to introduce legislation next
session to regulate tattoo parlors. Many in Arizona, for good reason,
decry regulating business. But tattooing is not just another business.
It's an invasive procedure.
Because of the nature of the product they sell, tattoo parlors should be
regulated. It's the smart and safe thing to do.
[Return
to top]
Tattoo shop owners want statewide health
standards
By William Hermann
The Arizona Republic
November 9, 2007
Valley tattoo parlor owners, eager to protect and burnish the reputation
of their industry, are calling for state regulation of the tattoo trade.
Sean Dowdell, who owns shops in Glendale, Tempe and Mesa, and another shop
owner met this week with two Tempe state legislators who say they now
intend to introduce legislation to regulate the tattoo industry.
Dowdell said that by his count, the Valley has 102 tattoo shops, “and
nobody is protecting the public from dirty needles, unclean conditions and
real health dangers.”
“If you want to cut hair or give a massage, you have to get training and
be licensed,'' Dowdell said. “But if you want to go buy some tattoo
equipment and start putting needles and ink into people, nobody is
checking on you.”
"This state is completely unregulated and that is amazing," said Harley
Goodson, who has operated No Regrets Tattoo Parlor in Tempe since 1999.
"It's a double-edged sword, and you can have government regulating an
industry it doesn't understand, but regulation is good on a basic level.
"If people doing what we do aren't careful, they can really hurt people;
we use needles on people and blood bubbles to the surface of the skin.
That's serious stuff."
State Rep. David Schapira, D-Tempe, said that on Wednesday he and
Sen. Meg Burton-Cahill, D-Tempe, met with Dowdell and Sage O'Connell,
owner of Urban Art Tattoo & Piercing in Mesa.
"What we heard from the tattoo industry is that they want to be more
respected and unless there is some sort of regulation, shops can exist
which will give a bad name to the whole industry," Schapira said.
He said he intends to introduce legislation to bring regulation to the
tattoo industry at the upcoming session of the Legislature.
Burton-Cahill said she considers the matter, "an issue of public health."
"When you get your hair cut, you know that person has met a basic
standard, and when we have tattoo artists putting holes in people you want
to know you are going to a shop that has met basic health standards," she
said.
But Burton-Cahill said she "a lot of homework must be done" before
legislation is introduced.
"We need to see how measures we take would be funded and we need to see
what is being done in other states," she said.
Tattoo industry regulation varies widely across the nation. Hawaii
licenses all tattoo artists and inspects tattoo operations. California
requires registration of tattoo businesses with a county health department
and facility inspections. In Nevada, tattoo artists must be licensed by
the city in which they operate. Colorado requires licensing under the
state Board of Cosmetology. In Mississippi, licensing is required by the
Department of Health.
Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota and many other states have little or no
state regulation.
Within Arizona, Coconino County requires its cities to license tattoo
parlors. Maricopa County has no such requirement.
The call for regulation comes in the midst of another Tempe controversy
that was elevated this week when the Goldwater Institute filed suit in
Maricopa County Superior Court against the Tempe City Council. The council
had voted last month to keep a Gilbert couple, who have run a Mesa tattoo
parlor for more than a decade, from opening a shop on Rural Road in north
Tempe.
Dowdell had been pushing for industry regulation long before this new
dustup, but said negative opinions voiced by local residents and business
owners about the impact of having a tattoo shop in their midst only
underscored the need to do everything possible to dispel old prejudices
about his industry.
Officials in the Arizona Department of Health Services said they have been
hearing from tattoo shop owners for some time about the need for
regulation. A department representative also attended Wednesday's meeting.
"This is becoming an increasing trend with the reputable operators," said
Will Humble, assistant director of ADHS. "The majority of the shop owners
are doing things in a sanitary way but a handful are not doing everything
they can. The bigger members of the industry are trying to make sure those
disreputable kinds of places don't give tattooing a bad name."
Humble said it's too early to say exactly how tattoo industry regulation
might work - whether the state would establish a licensing and inspection
arm or perhaps pass licensing and enforcement along to the counties - but
he said one thing is vital for regulation to work.
"Once either state health services or the cosmetology board or the
counties take responsibility, the question of funding will come up," he
said "Nobody wants an unfunded mandate. If you give someone this
responsibility, you have to make sure you give them the resources to do
the work. That could be, for instance, through permit fees."
[Return
to top]
|
Tough
DUI law to begin
First offenders must use ignition devices
By Lindsey Collom
The Arizona Republic
September 16, 2007
This week Arizona will
enact one of the toughest DUI laws in the nation.
Hardest hit are
first-time violators and a new class of "super extreme" DUI offenders
whose
blood-alcohol
concentration
registers |
Click here to watch The AZ Republic's video about
the new DUI law
|
0.20 percent or above, which is more than
double the legal limit of 0.08 percent.
Beginning Wednesday, new penalties include mandatory ignition-interlock
devices for first-time offenders, increased fines and a minimum of 45 days
in jail for super extreme DUI convictions.
The law was modeled after legislation passed in New Mexico in 2005
requiring interlock devices for all people convicted of driving under the
influence. Officials there linked a 4 percent decrease in alcohol-related
fatalities to interlock use in the year following the law's passage.
Although lawmakers hope for a similar result in Arizona, DUI attorneys say
the higher stakes will lead to increased court caseloads and an extreme
inconvenience in the lives of "super extreme" and first-time offenders.
The Arizona Motor Vehicle Division expects about 17,000 first-time drunken
drivers in the coming year. They all will have to pass a breath test
before getting behind the wheel.
Sixth-highest in U.S.
Rep. David Schapira, D-Tempe, realizes the bill he sponsored may
not win him votes in popularity, but he hopes the law will make Arizona's
roads safer.
One Arizona State University student said during a recent chat with
legislators " 'Gosh, that DUI bill is just ridiculous. Whose idea was
this?' " Schapira said.
The negative response is understandable, he said, given that the penalties
are meant to be strong deterrents.
Schapira, the Legislature's youngest member at 27, and his staff
came up with a DUI bill earlier this year after learning about New
Mexico's success. Although a victim of an alcohol-related crash in 1996,
Schapira said he hadn't fully realized the problem of drunken
driving in Arizona.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration records show Arizona had
the sixth-highest number of alcohol-related fatalities in the nation.
There were 585 alcohol-related fatalities statewide in 2006, up 15 percent
from 2005.
Overall, drunken driving has significantly decreased in the past 20 years,
but the state has hit a plateau, said Ericka Espino, executive director
for Mothers Against Drunk Driving Arizona.
"Saturation patrols certainly help, as do sobriety checkpoints, and we're
thankful," Espino said. "Unfortunately, Arizona's numbers are not going
down. . . . We need to figure out what's going on. We truly believe
ignition interlock is the solution for us: It takes the weapon out of the
hands of the drunk driver."
The law, which was signed by Gov. Janet Napolitano in May, made Arizona
the second state to require ignition-interlock devices for first-time
offenders. Louisiana and Illinois also followed suit.
Interlock devices are wired beneath the dash of a vehicle and require a
clean breath sample to start the car. Most units will prevent the car from
starting if a blood-alcohol content of 0.03 percent or above is detected.
A person has three tries to blow a clean sample before the device shuts
down and requires a technician to recalibrate it.
About 100,000 people in the U.S. use the devices; about 7,000 of those are
in Arizona, according to MVD records. Most, if not all, users in Arizona
are repeat offenders.
Law drawing critics
The harsh new stance on drunken drivers has its share of detractors.
Critics say interlock devices are expensive to maintain and provide a
short-term answer to a long-term problem.
The offender pays for the device, which typically costs $100 for
installation and about $80 a month to maintain. Most first-time offenders
will have the device for 12 months. That cost is in addition to the more
than $1,000 in fines imposed for a DUI conviction.
And studies have shown that while interlock devices are effective while in
use, drivers tend to slip into old habits once the units are removed.
"We recognize that many offenders may have an alcohol dependency that
underlies their drinking-and-driving behavior," said Anne McCartt, vice
president for research at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
"Even if interlocks don't prevent drinking and driving when they're
removed, it can reduce drinking and driving while they're installed, and
we think that's important."
DUI defense attorney Mark Weingart said clients have been clamoring for
information on whether the new law will affect pre-existing cases. It
doesn't, but Weingart warned that he expects courts to see a spike in the
number of DUI cases that are challenged.
Most of Weingart's clients have been arrested on suspicion of having a
blood-alcohol content over the legal limit or are in the new "super
extreme" category with a blood-alcohol content of 0.20 percent or above.
Under the new law, the sentence for a first-time conviction of super
extreme DUI nets at least 45 days in jail and a judge is prohibited from
suspending any part of the jail time. Previously, a judge could suspend
most of the sentence upon completion of a court-sponsored drug or alcohol
program.
"Now I think defense lawyers are going to have to learn to exploit all of
the potential for error there is in blood or breath testing," Weingart
said. "We're talking about a situation here where if somebody has a blood
test of .1999, you have 10 days in jail. If it's one-thousandth of a point
higher, it's 45 days.
"I think people are going to have to fight these DUIs harder than ever
before."
In New Mexico, that's exactly what happened.
David Crum, a DUI attorney in Albuquerque, said more first-time-offense
cases have gone to trial since the 2005 interlock law was enacted.
Although first-time offenders see interlocks as inconvenient, multiple
offenders embrace the device, Crum said.
"For a lot of people, it's been helpful," Crum said. "I know it's probably
weird to hear me say that. When you get repeat offenders in New Mexico,
it's easier for me to say we can make a deal where you can still drive
anytime, anywhere as long as you have an interlock in your car."
Advocates hope that the state's new law will be tough and inconvenient
enough to deter drunken driving.
"The biggest argument we kept hearing is it's such an inconvenience for
the first-time offender," Espino said. "It's either an inconvenience or
someone possibly injuring or killing themselves or others. To me, it's no
question. Ultimately, it will save lives."
[Return to top]
New laws target mortgages, sex offenders
By Mary Jo Pitzl
The Arizona Republic
September 16, 2007
From making mortgage fraud a felony to more closely tracking sex
offenders, laws enacted by the Legislature get legal legs Wednesday.
Starting this week, Arizona will have one of the nation's tougher laws on
mortgage fraud, a law that more closely tracks sex offenders, and a law
requiring first time drunken driving offenders to use an interlock device.
The most controversial of the lot - employer sanctions, which would crack
down on businesses that knowingly hire undocumented workers - doesn't take
effect until Jan. 1.
The inventory at Guardian Interlock is growing because of the new DUI law.
Guardian Interlock currently installs an average of eight
ignition-interlock devices a day, said Dan Rhodes, general manager of the
Tempe company. But he expects that to change come Wednesday.
"We've been slowly increasing our ordering," Rhodes said. "We anticipate a
fivefold increase."
The bill makes Arizona one of the few states in the nation to require the
interlock devices of first-time drunken-driving offenders. Currently,
Arizona law mandates the devices only for extreme-DUI cases and repeat
offenders.
The mortgage fraud law makes it a felony to issue mortgage loans under
conditions that prove to be fraudulent. It targets the cash-back deals
that were popular before the market turndown.
Cash-back deals allowed a buyer to get a loan for more than a house's
value, then keep the extra cash.
Sen. Jay Tibshraeny, the bill's sponsor, said that given what has happened
to the real-estate market, he wishes he'd come up with the legislation
earlier.
"With what's going on today, if the law had been in place a year ago, it
might have led to a decrease in the schemes and scams that have undermined
not only the state economy, but the national economy," said Tibshraeny,
R-Chandler.
The mortgage-fraud idea was broached by a constituent who worked in the
mortgage industry.
Another law that seeks to protect real-estate buyers also takes effect
Wednesday. It establishes a condominium-recovery fund, which protects the
down payment should the project fail to materialize.
It's similar to the protections available to people who buy single-family
homes. Sen. Ken Cheuvront, D-Phoenix, won approval for this bill after two
years of trying.
It wouldn't be a legislative session without a pitched battle or two over
homeowner-association rules.
As of Wednesday, score one for homeowners within HOAs who want to post
for-sale signs on their property: The signs can't be prohibited by HOAs.
Tom Farley, who lobbies for the Arizona Association of Realtors, said that
bill attracted a level of support from Realtors that he underestimated.
They rebuffed attempts to defeat or water down the bill, as the debate
devolved into detailed discussions of what size the sign can be (18 inches
by 24 inches max).
Sex offenders got a lot of legislative attention.
Beginning Wednesday, registered sex offenders cannot set up residence
within 1,000 feet of a school or day-care center, and they must report
their Internet identities, such as e-mail addresses and social-networking
names, to the state's sex-offender registry.
Meanwhile, the state Department of Public Safety has been given the green
light by a bill, sponsored by freshman Rep. Sam Crump, R-Anthem, to hire a
company to comb through public records and other databases for information
on sex offenders who might not have registered in Arizona.
Tax-law changes are being added to the state's tax booklets, which go to
the printer next month. They include a $28 million cut in the corporate
income tax, as well as tax credits for people who invest in
college-tuition savings plans, called 529 plans after their place in the
federal tax code.
The controversial county fire-island district bill takes effect, with
immediate implications for people living on unincorporated lands close to
existing cities.
The legislation allows those residents to form their own fire districts,
which then can contract for fire coverage. If no company responds to their
bids for service, then the surrounding city must provide that service.
Cities had fought this, arguing they should not be obligated to provide
service to residents who live outside their boundaries.
Other bills will take effect later, even spilling into next year.
For example, by March 31, leaf-blower use will be limited in Greater
Phoenix. Restrictions include a ban against blowing debris into roadways,
using the blowers on dust-covered surfaces, and operation of leaf blowers
on high-pollution days unless the tool is in a "vacuum" mode.
Students who graduate early from high school will be eligible for
scholarships later this year. The state Department of Education has until
Nov. 1 to prepare the application forms.
Already, work is under way on bills for next year's legislative session.
The Legislative Council, which prepares bills for lawmakers, reports that
168 potential bills are already in the works. And it's still four months
until the start of the next legislative session.
[Return to top]
Lawmaker proves rookies can make a difference
By Le Templar
East Valley Tribune
August 4, 2007
Rep. David Schapira, D-Tempe, didn’t
get the program he wanted this year to offer forgivable college loans as
an incentive for teachers to work in less desirable parts of the state.
And he’s smiling about it.
That’s because Schapira wound up with a program that has more money
to fund even more forgivable loans for students who become math, science
and special education teachers, thanks to the Byzantine budgeting methods
of the Arizona Legislature.
“As do most good pieces of legislation, it did go through a metamorphosis,
and at no time was something added that I opposed,” Schapira said
last week.
In January, I wrote about Schapira’s proposal to spend $1.5 million
a year for up to 300 loans for university in-state tuition of students
seeking education degrees. Loan repayment would be waived if graduates
went to work at schools with severe teacher shortages. I noted Schapira
faced a huge challenge in winning passage as a first-year lawmaker in the
minority party, but he did have support from two Mesa Republicans who
chair key education committees — Rep. Mark Anderson and Sen. Karen
Johnson.
Schapira picked up another critical ally — Gov. Janet Napolitano —
after Anderson shifted the bill’s focus from geography to teaching
specialty. Napolitano is pushing to raise math and science standards for
high school students, and schools around the state struggle to find
special education teachers. As a former math teacher himself, Schapira
couldn’t complain about enticing more instructors into those fields.
The proposal sailed through two House committees, but then was placed on
hold by Republican leadership — a typical step for all spending bills that
aren’t part of the main budget package. That prompted Schapira to
make a lot of trips over to the Senate, where bipartisan budget
negotiations were progressing in consultation with Napolitano’s office.
The forgivable loan plan landed in the higher education budget bill — with
a new price tag of $2.25 million. Negotiators also included a requirement
that students must teach for least one year beyond the number of years
they receive tuition loans to avoid repayment. The Arizona Board of
Regents has to start handing out the loans in time for the spring semester
of 2008.
Schapira was actually rather effective this session, considering
that most lawmakers spend their first year just figuring how the
Legislature works. He also amended a drunken-driving bill to require all
DUI sentences to include the use of auto ignition interlock devices for a
year.
“Not enough people understand the power of asking,” Schapira said
in explaining his success. “Too often, you just assume someone won’t
support you. But when you go and ask, they’ll surprise you.”
Next year, he will be asking again — to fund even more college loans for
teachers in other specialties.
[Return to top]
Man on a mission
Young legislator is out to improve the world
By Debra Morton Gelbart
Jewish News of Greater Phoenix
June 29, 2007
He's had a half-hour, in-person, informal conversation with Bill Clinton.
He has worked for former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle and was the
Arizona director for Sen. Joe Lieberman's 2004 presidential bid. He served
as the campaign manager for Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard's 2002
run for office. He's also been a high school math teacher in an
International Baccalaureate program.
That would be an impressive resume for someone who's been out of college
for two decades. But David Schapira is just 27 years old. And now,
he's in the state Legislature trying to help the community at large.
Schapira is a third-generation Arizonan from a well-known Jewish
family continuing to make a name for himself as a hard-working, effective
public servant. But as charmed as his adult life seems to be, his
childhood was not.
He was born with a congenital melanoma on his left cheek that required
surgery every four years until he was 16.
"I never really felt different from anyone else because of the cancer,"
says Schapira, the son of Howard Schapira and Beth Schatz. "I
wasn't even aware of how extremely rare congenital melanoma is until two
years ago." He has been in remission since he was 16 and is vigilant about
making sure there are no changes in color, size or shape of moles or
freckles. He says his condition has taught him "to value life a lot more.
I've also learned how to handle crisis situations."
One of those crisis situations occurred shortly after he got his first
driver's license as a teenager, as he was waiting at a red light at the
intersection of Seventh Street and Greenway Road in Phoenix. "After it
turned green, a drunk, uninsured motorist slammed into me on my driver's
side going 55 miles an hour. I survived because the impact of the crash
ripped my seat loose from the floorboard and I was thrown into the lap of
my passenger. This was the other driver's fourth DUI and he went to jail
for only 90 days." The accident has left Schapira with permanent
back problems, and he has never been compensated for his medical bills
resulting from the accident.
"I certainly didn't feel lucky when it happened," he says, "but I felt
extremely fortunate after the accident. The paramedic at the scene simply
couldn't believe that I wasn't dead or seriously injured."
That experience has propelled him to the front lines of DUI-related
legislation. As a Democratic freshman state Representative from District
17 in Tempe, he crafted an amendment to Republican state Sen. Jim Waring's
bill mandating heavier penalties for a drunk-driving conviction.
Schapira's amendment calls for mandatory installation of an ignition
interlock (Breathalyzer) device in any car operated by an individual
convicted of driving under the influence.
Schapira received bipartisan support for the amendment. Waring
respected how Schapira approached him about adding the amendment to
his bill. "Another representative had tried to add an amendment to my bill
without asking me first," Waring says. "David asked my permission
to add an amendment, and then met with the Transportation Committee chair
to get him on board. We moved forward as a team, and I appreciated that."
Waring estimates that the measure will save between 50 and 70 Arizona
lives in the coming year.
"I have always operated under the principle of tikkun olam (repairing the
world)," says Schapira, whose grandparents, Edith and Jerry
Schapira, moved to Phoenix from New York in 1948. "I've felt an obligation
to take on jobs, tasks and hobbies that put me in a position to better the
world."
In spite of the challenges he faced in his childhood, he believes his life
has been defined by a series of lucky breaks.
He majored in political science at George Washington University in
Washington, D.C. Before graduating, he sought an internship with almost
every Democrat on Capitol Hill. Instead of an internship, he landed a
staff assistant job in Sen. Tom Daschle's office.
While he was there, he learned that North Canyon High School in Phoenix,
where he had graduated, desperately needed math and science teachers.
Feeling the need to help in that arena, he came back to Phoenix and
arranged for emergency teacher certification (required because he didn't
major in education in college). "Even though I was a political science
major, I like math a lot and I was comfortable teaching it," he says. A
graduate of North Canyon's International Baccalaureate program in 1998, he
began teaching advanced geometry to IB students.
While teaching, Schapira also was building relationships with local
Democratic leaders. One day in April 2002, he got a call from the
political director of the state Democratic Party asking if he'd like to
volunteer at a Bill Clinton speaking engagement in Phoenix the next day.
He was assigned to work with the press in attendance at the speech. "After
the speech, I was asked if I'd like to collect items audience members
wanted Bill Clinton to autograph," he says, "because Clinton likes to sign
autographs after meeting a crowd.
"When I finished setting up a table backstage with all the things to be
signed," Schapira says, "Clinton walked in, sat down and started
autographing, chatting with me the whole time. We sat there for about a
half hour."
From that chance encounter came an opportunity to direct then-candidate
for Attorney General Terry Goddard's 2002 campaign.
"Because of Clean Election rules, David was pretty much a one-man
show as the campaign manager," Goddard says. "He's bright, brash and a man
with extraordinary talents and a lot of self-confidence. He came to us
highly recommended and bore out that promise."
After working for Goddard, Schapira was contacted as a reference
for someone applying for a press job in the Arizona office of Sen. Joe
Lieberman's 2004 presidential campaign. That conversation led to
Schapira taking another job himself with the Lieberman campaign. After
working there through the summer of 2003, he was named state director for
Lieberman in the fall.
That job ended after the state presidential primary in February 2004.
Before running for the state Legislature, Schapira continued to
teach school and consulted on three or four different congressional races.
He also worked with the American Cancer Society. "Until then, I hadn't
really focused on cancer as it related to other people," he says. "And I
wanted to do that, because all four of my grandparents have had cancer."
He decided to run for the Legislature in 2006 because "as a teacher, I was
always thinking about which area of government can have the most impact on
educational issues, and I decided it's the state legislative branch."
He won the election handily, defeating a Republican incumbent. In his
first term, Schapira succeeded in getting a K-12 teacher loan
forgiveness program included in the state budget. The $2.5 million measure
allows students majoring in education to apply for a loan through the
state for tuition, books and fees to attend any state university. After
they graduate, for every year they teach math, science or special
education, a year of their loan is forgiven.
Next January, when the Legislature reconvenes, he will focus on raising
the K-12 bonding cap, so school districts can have access to more funding;
appropriating more money to English Language Learner programs; providing
funding for International Baccalaureate programs; and trying to get
Arizona to opt out of federal No Child Left Behind requirements.
Politics gives him the opportunity to help a lot of people, he says.
"Judaism teaches that we're not living just for ourselves, but for the
people around us. And we're not a Jewish-centric community. We aren't
focused just on helping our own community, but on helping the human
community."
For the foreseeable future, he's concentrating on what he can accomplish
in the Legislature. "I want to do absolutely the best job I can in the
position I'm in now," he says. "I'm not looking ahead to other jobs."
[Return to top]
6 lawmakers who made a difference
By
Jessica Coomes
The Arizona Republic
June 24, 2007
Six state lawmakers stood out from the crowd during the 2007 session for
their ideas, persistence and success in achieving legislation that could
have an impact.
Rep. David Schapira, D-Tempe, at 27, the Legislature's youngest
member, came to the Republican-controlled Legislature after beating an
incumbent Republican in his competitive district. In spite of obstacles
that come with being in the minority party, Schapira pushed for a
controversial new law that will require all DUI offenders to have ignition
interlocks on their cars.
Freshmen lawmakers test wings
By fall, teen graffiti vandals will face tougher punishments, and all DUI
offenders will have ignition interlocks in their cars because of policies
pushed by freshmen members of the Arizona Legislature.
Of the state's 90 lawmakers, 17 just finished their first session. While
some unflinching new lawmakers jumped in and started politicking right
away, others stood on the sidelines and said they will start pushing their
policies next year.
Some agreed the lawmaking process is inefficient, takes too long and
doesn't include enough thoughtful debate. Rep. Theresa Ulmer, D-Yuma, said
she thinks voters would start a revolution if they knew how little work
the Legislature did. Rep. Lena Saradnik, D-Tucson, said she would like to
see fewer bills introduced and leave time for more thoughtful debate.
"You never hear how ineffective the process is," said Rep. Andy Tobin, R-Paulden.
"Oftentimes people tell you there's a good reason for that, but I haven't
found a good reason yet."
First-year Rep. Rich Crandall, R-Mesa, said lawmakers didn't tackle
meaningful issues, such as health care reform and budget reductions,
during the 164-day session.
"In the private sector, if you don't have something major to show, they
let you go," Crandall said.
Strategies for newcomers
Two freshmen in particular jumped into policymaking right away. When
Democratic Rep. David Schapira didn't get a hearing for his bill to
require interlocks for all convicted drunken drivers, the Tempe newcomer
worked with a veteran Republican lawmaker to get the idea worked into
another bill. Gov. Janet Napolitano eventually signed the measure into
law.
Fellow freshman Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, quickly pushed for
legislation to crack down on day laborers. Later, after Napolitano vetoed
that bill, Kavanagh led an unsuccessful charge to repeal Schapira's
ignition-interlock measure.
Kavanagh said he started pushing for legislation right away because he's
been groomed for this job since he started in politics in high school.
But many freshmen took a sit-back-and-learn approach to their first term.
Rep. Sam Crump, R-Anthem, said he felt pressure to bring bills his first
year, but he took advice to wait a year until he's more prepared to
advocate for them. Crump pointed out that his mere presence as a
conservative Republican was important in getting across the conservative
ideas of other members.
Despite their expectations coming in, some freshmen Democrats said they
found it difficult to get their bills heard in the Republican-controlled
Legislature. Still, freshmen in the minority party often found their voice
on the House floor, taking time to speak publicly on the merits or
demerits of a bill.
Rep. Adam Driggs, R-Phoenix, said he learned the hot-button, flashy issues
that lawmakers campaign on aren't the topics that the Legislature always
works on. For example, he had a bill signed into law regarding
electrical-district elections.
Freshman lawmakers' first six months
Some freshmen lawmakers got their bills signed into law during their first
year. Others struggled to draw any attention to their ideas.
Rep. David Schapira, Tempe. Teacher salaries. Schapira
introduced a bill that would set the minimum salary for public teachers at
$33,000, which also was a priority for Gov. Janet Napolitano. Though it
didn't get a hearing, he said he kept pushing for the idea. The final
budget includes $46 million intended for teacher pay increases. "It's
unreal there are teachers in the state who make $24,000," Schapira
said.
[Return to top]
Emerging Leaders Worth Watching
The Arizona Republic
May 21, 2007
 David
Schapira
Unexpectedly, Schapira has captured the
attention and respect of legislative colleagues on both sides of the
aisle. That's no small feat for a Democrat in Arizona's Republican
Legislature, let alone a freshman Democrat. Schapira has pushed
legislation to expand the use of ignition interlock devices and alcoholism
counseling for DUI offenders and has joined with some East Valley GOP
legislators in a push to overturn Republican leaders' proposed cuts in
anticipated funding for high school vocational-technical education
programs.
[Return to top]
High Fives
The Arizona Republic
May 19, 2007
We
give a high five to freshman Rep. David Schapira, D-Tempe, for all
the work he put in to crafting a formidable DUI bill. Maybe Democrats are
in the minority, and maybe they traditionally don't get a lot of credence
at the Statehouse, but Schapira has fully embraced a spirit of
bipartisanship - and is accomplishing great things his first year.
[Return to top]
DUI convicts must
test breath for alcohol before starting cars
By Jessica Coomes
The Arizona Republic
May 18, 2007
Convicted of DUI? Expect to spend the next year testing your breath for
alcohol each time you start your car.
Gov. Janet Napolitano Friday signed a bill into law that will require all
convicted drunken drivers to have ignition-interlock devices installed in
their vehicles.
"We've seen th |
