|
|
Schapira in Senate race
By Jennifer Goldberg
Jewish News of Greater Phoenix
June 25, 2010
It's been several years since Democrat David Schapira, an Arizona
state representative for District 17 (Tempe and south Scottsdale), was a
high-school mathematics teacher in the Arizona public-school system. But
as he finishes his second term in the State House and sets his sights on
the District 17 seat in the Arizona Senate, education is still his top
priority.
In fact, public education was the reason Schapira, 30, got into
politics.
"I was just kind of frustrated with the way that the system is set up in
Arizona, and I wanted to make a difference on education issues and
realized that the Legislature is the place to do that," Schapira
said. "So that's why I originally ran, and why I continue to work to stay
there."
Schapira, a third-generation Arizonan, was first elected to the
Arizona House in 2006 and re-elected in 2008. He chose to seek the Senate
seat after a discussion with outgoing District 17 Sen. Meg Burton Cahill,
who is retiring.
Cahill "came and talked to me and said that she'd like me to step up and
take her place," Schapira said. "I looked into it as a possibility
and decided to do it mostly because after four years in the House, one of
the things I realized is that ... it's a little difficult sometimes to get
things accomplished when you're one of 60. I'm hoping being one of 30 will
be a little bit easier.
"It's essentially the same job description, just the higher chamber. Your
vote means twice as much."
During his tenure in the House, Schapira was the primary sponsor of
HB 2206, the Teacher Loan Forgiveness Program, an initiative that gives
graduates of Arizona's state universities one year of student-loan
forgiveness for each year they teach math, science or special education at
an Arizona public school. The bill was passed in 2007.
"Essentially, it's putting some of the top graduates from our three state
universities into teaching positions where we haven't otherwise been able
to find teachers," Schapira says.
Another piece of legislation Schapira worked on was an amendment to
Republican Sen. Jim Waring's SB 1029 bill mandating heavier penalties for
a drunken-driving conviction. Schapira's amendment calls for
mandatory installation of an ignition interlock device in any car operated
by a first-time DUI offender. Schapira's amendment was inspired by
a similar initiative in New Mexico. The bill, with Schapira's
amendment, became law in 2007.
If elected to the Senate, Schapira will continue to work on
education issues.
"The vast majority, probably 75 or 80 percent of the bills that I've
brought in my four years, have been education-related, and I don't see
that changing too much," he said. "It's certainly my focus and my
priority, and I think it really should be the state's focus and the
state's priority."
Other issues that concern him are the state budget, especially as it
relates to school funding, and SB 1070, the newly enacted immigration
law..
"(SB) 1070 is a poorly written law which does not solve the problem,"
Schapira said. "The immigration problems that we have in this state
and in the country are substantial and have got to be addressed.
"I want to address the problem, but I don't think 1070 does ... and
unfortunately, it's going to have some unintended consequences at the same
time."
Of all Schapira has done in four years of public office, one of his
proudest moments was his introduction of HR 2008, a House resolution
expressing regret at the death of Rabbi Albert Plotkin, rabbi emeritus at
Congregation Beth Israel in Scottsdale. Schapira read the
resolution on the floor of the House on April 28, in front of Plotkin's
family and friends.
"I love to recognize him as much as I can because he was such an amazing
man," Schapira said. "It was really a pleasure and one of my best
legislative experiences to have the opportunity to honor him."
Plotkin was a close friend of Schapira's family, who attended Beth
Israel before moving to Temple Chai when he was young; he became a bar
mitzvah at Temple Chai.
The role Judaism plays in his life is "significant," he said.
"Faith guides me in a lot of the decisions that I make in my personal
life, and I think that my Jewish education has certainly instructed a lot
of who I am as a person," he said. "To me, tikkun olam is not just the
right thing to do - we're commanded to do it. And so for me, public
service is something that I am commanded to do."
Schapira and his wife, Rosemary, live in Tempe. Their first child,
a daughter, had not been born as of the afternoon of June 23, but is
expected any day, he said.
[Return to top]
Candidates line up for legislative races
By Dianna M. Náñez
The Arizona Republic
May 27, 2010
A legislator known for working across party lines and a retired U.S. Air
Force pilot will battle for a District 17 Senate seat left open by a
seasoned politician who is not seeking re-election because of health
problems.
David Schapira, a two-term District 17 House Representative and
Democrat, is making a bid for the state Senate seat and will face
Republican candidate Wendy Rogers. Libertarian Garret Chartier-Dickie is
also in the race but he did not immediately return a call for information
on his candidacy.
The deadline for candidates to submit nominating petitions for this year's
elections was Wednesday. The Arizona Secretary of State's Office must
validate the signatures on candidates' nominating petitions.
State Sen. Meg Burton Cahill's decision last fall not to seek re-election
triggered a political shakeup that has Democrats trying to maintain
control of the swing district, which includes Tempe and south Scottsdale.
Burton Cahill cited health problems as her reason for not running. She was
first elected to the House in 2000.
Burton Cahill would not have been term-limited from the seat until 2014.
Schapira is a native Arizonan who is also running for a Tempe Union
High School Governing Board seat. Rogers moved to the Valley in 1996 after
retiring from the military.
Schapira's campaign for the Senate opened his House seat.
The District 17 House race has an incumbent and seven challengers running
to fill two seats. Ben Arredondo, a native Tempe resident and longtime
Tempe City Council member, switched parties to enter the race as a
Democrat.
He said he was a moderate Republican and would run as a moderate Democrat.
Arredondo's fourth City Council term expires in July.
Ed Ableser is an incumbent candidate for the Democrats. Republican
candidate Augustus Shaw, an attorney, already has an endorsement from
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
The District 17 House race is one of the few in the state to include
candidates running for the Green Party and Libertarian Party.
June 10 is the deadline for the filing of legal challenges to nominating
petitions. The primary election is Aug. 24.
[Return to top]
Tempe lawmakers’ hard work lands bills on
governor’s desk
May 3, 2010
STATE CAPITOL, PHOENIX – Tempe’s team of Democratic state lawmakers
successfully worked to pass important bills this year ranging from
protecting Arizonans from predatory tow truck companies to ensuring that
parents have the right to chose which medical professionals can diagnose
their children. Rep. David Schapira, D-Tempe (District 17), Rep. Ed
Ableser, D-Tempe (District 17) and Sen. Meg Burton Cahill, D-Tempe
(District 17) each saw their bills move through both legislative chambers
this session.
“We each worked together in a bipartisan way to make sure these important
bills passed,” Schapira said. “The most essential parts of being
state lawmakers are working hard on behalf of our community and
representing the values of our constituents.”
District 17 lawmakers’ bills that await the governor’s signature:
Schapira
· HB 2080 — Helps students with chronic health problems by expanding
parents’ choices of health professionals to certify their children need
special accommodations to complete their coursework.
· HB 2401 — Provides forgiveable loans to students at our state's
universities who commit to teach in elementary school districts with
teacher shortages.
Ableser
· HB 2462 — Creates strict measures to work with law enforcement to
aggressively crack down on predatory practices and price gouging by the
tow truck industry.
Burton Cahill
· SB 1232 — Conforms Arizona’s civil rights laws with the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
“It is wrong for tow truck businesses to prey on Arizonans parked on
private property, and this bill will hold these companies to higher
standards,” Ableser said. “As your Tempe lawmakers, we will keep working
hard to get Arizona back on track by protecting consumer rights.”
All of the bills passed with bipartisan support.
“We are working to make positive changes and find common sense solutions
for the constituents we represent,” Burton Cahill said. “It has made me
proud to do that for all the years I have served Tempe and south
Scottsdale and I thank the people of District 17 for allowing me to do
that.”
[Return to top]
Schapira First to File in District 17
April 27, 2010
TEMPE - David Schapira has filed enough petition signatures with
the Secretary of State’s office to qualify as a candidate for the State
Senate race in District 17. He is the first candidate in District 17 of
either party in either the House or Senate races to qualify. Schapira,
a Clean Elections participating candidate, also filed more than the
requisite number of $5 qualifying contributions in order to run under
Arizona’s Clean Elections system.
An Arizona native, Schapira has drawn on his experience as a
teacher and small business owner to serve Tempe and south Scottsdale for
two terms in the State House of Representatives. He has received
commendation as one of six “Lawmakers Who Made a Difference” and one of
five “Emerging Leaders Worth Watching” by the Arizona Republic. He aims to
bring his effective, pragmatic approach as a leader to the State Senate.
“I am honored by the way that petitions and contributions poured in from
people all over Tempe and south Scottsdale. The people of our state are
hungry for a change in leadership now more than ever, and I intend to be a
part of that change,” said Schapira. “For years, the leadership at
the capitol has proven that they care more about practicing destructive,
exclusive partisan politics and pursuing extremist ideological goals than
they do about working on behalf of the people of Arizona. We have to break
the status quo before it breaks our state completely.”
In addition to the recognition Schapira has received from the
Arizona Republic, he has been named a top legislator by the Arizona
Student Association, American Cancer Society, Mothers Against Drunk
Driving and the Arizona Technology Council. Schapira has worked
tirelessly at the capitol to make improving Arizona’s public education
system a priority. He considers investment in K-12 and university
education essential to reviving the state’s stagnant economy.
“Education must come first, and in this economy and job market, it’s even
more critical to our advancement as a state. The best way to bring stable,
well-paying jobs to Arizona is by offering employers a highly educated
workforce. The best way to develop a robust, homegrown economic foundation
is through our public universities’ research initiatives.”
Schapira and his wife Rosemary reside in Tempe, and are expecting
the birth of their first child this summer.
[Return to top]
Tempe seems out of place in red state
By Tom Spratt
Arizona Republic
February 25, 2010
More and more, Tempe seems to belong to some state other than Arizona. The
part of Massachusetts that still votes for Democrats, perhaps. Or any
region of California north of Orange County.
What's happening elsewhere in Arizona - especially at the state Capitol -
seems remote from life in Tempe, where moderation is still fashionable,
the Arizona Cardinals are but a memory and nobody has announced a campaign
to replace County Attorney Andrew Thomas. At least, not yet.
Tempe's apartness from the rest of the state was apparent during a visit
to the Republic's Mesa newsroom this week by David Schapira, Ed
Ableser and Rae Waters. The three Democrats represent Tempe in the state
House of Representatives. For the record, they were civil throughout the
meeting, did not yell or denounce anyone and seemed, well, very
intelligent. In other words, they have no influence whatsoever over this
year's state budget process.
However, they did have some mild observations. For example, they think
many of their fellow lawmakers are out of step with most people in
Arizona. They believe the state was on the correct path two years ago, on
its way to becoming a national model for its approach to higher education,
juvenile justice, energy and conservation.
"We were doing things correctly," Ableser said.
Then, in the Democrats' minds, things began to unravel. Moderate
Republicans and Democrats fared poorly in the 2008 state election. By the
2009 legislative session, cooperation between the Republican leadership
and Democrats had virtually ended. Lawmakers began doing exactly the
opposite of what facts suggested would be reasonable, the Tempe
legislators observed. The average Republican legislative leader had become
far more radically conservative than the average Republican voter,
Schapira asserted.
The result, the Tempe lawmakers said, is that public education faces
cutbacks far more devastating than most Arizonans want. Among other
things, Arizona faces many more teacher layoffs, larger class sizes and
the elimination of programs that help children with the greatest needs,
they said.
The state is falling behind in other areas, they said: For example,
funding has been cut for research and development the state needs to
remain competitive in the business world.
Unlike Republican-led Legislatures of the past, this year's group has a
much more anti-government philosophy, Ableser said.
"They truly don't want to see government succeed," he said. ""I think it's
sad that (philosophy) has penetrated government in such a harmful way,"
The Tempe lawmakers' solution to the budget crisis is a combination of
cuts, increases in revenues (e.g., higher taxes) and an increase in
borrowing.
Their favored approach is embodied in a proposed "nonpartisan" bill by
Rep. Bill Konopnicki, R-Safford. But the bill has yet to be introduced.,
well beyond the deadline for offering new legislation. And most likely,
the Tempe lawmakers acknowledge, it will remain on the sidelines as
legislative leaders pursue other approaches.
But all this seems remote from life in Tempe, where a new Irish pub on
Mill Avenue is more than enough to banish the state budget battles from
everyone's minds.
[Return to top]
House Dems name members of tuition tax credit task
force
By Arizona Capitol Times Staff
August 13, 2009
House Democrats today named eight members, including three Republicans, to
serve on their newly formed Task Force on Private School Tuition Tax
Credits program.
Billed as a bipartisan panel, Democrats announced that the task force will
be chaired by Rep. David Schapira, a Democrat from Tempe, with Tom Chabin,
a Democrat from Flagstaff, named vice chair.
Also named to the panel were: House Democratic Whip Chad Campbell of
Phoenix; Rep. Nancy Young Wright, a Democrat from Tucson; Rep. Cloves
Campbell, a Democrat from Phoenix; Rep. Rich Crandall, a Republican from
Mesa; Rep. Doris Goodale, a Republican from Kingman, and Rep. Steve Court,
a Republican from Mesa.
Schapira said Democrats and Republicans must work together “to ensure this
program is effective for Arizona’s school children and that it’s not
violating state and federal laws in the future.”
“I commend those who have joined the task force to build education for a
stronger Arizona,” Schapira stated in a press release.
The task force will hold its first meeting on Sept. 21 at 10 a.m. in House
Hearing Room 3.
On Aug. 11, House Democrats requested an investigation into the state’s
Private School Tuition Tax Credits program, which reportedly is violating
several federal and state laws. House Democrats also announced the
creation of the task force specifically to address the program’s problems
and work on bipartisan legislation to reform it.
House Democratic Leader David Lujan said, “Too many questions and concerns
have been raised about this program and its reported violations of various
laws,”. “The task force will be essential to address this problem and
correct it.”
Recent investigations by East Valley Tribune and The Arizona Republic
detail the potentially huge problems and reported illegal activities that
come from this tax credit program.
The program allows taxpayers to donate money to school tuition
organizations, or nonprofit charities. These STOs then give scholarships
to children for private school tuition. In return, the state matches the
donations with a tax credit in exchange for their contribution.
The program was signed into law in 1997 by then-Gov. Fife Symington, a
Republican, and was supposed to make private education more accessible to
families who can’t afford it. But so far, newspaper reports indicate that
hasn’t happened.
For instance, according to the Tribune, STOs reportedly are violating
federal tax laws that govern charitable organizations by operating with
donations earmarked for particular individuals. They also reportedly are
violating state law by not committing a sufficient portion of the
donations to students while buying luxury items.
Both newspapers’ investigative reports can be accessed online at
www.eastvalleytribune.com and
www.azcentral.com.
[Return to top]
GOP plan would charge state's poorest more
money to attend college
By Dennis Welch and Patti Epler
The Arizona Guardian
April 26, 2009
As it stands, the state pays for its poorest students to attend college
for free.
But that could change as state lawmakers consider charging many students,
including those on need-based scholarships, a minimum of $1,000 a year.
The proposal is just one of hundreds being secretly considered by
legislators as they attempt to shore up a $3 billion budget deficit.
House Appropriations Committee Chairman John Kavanagh says lawmakers are
looking at the option and that it's expected to save taxpayers as much as
$10 million a year.
But the money, he says, isn't the only reason for the change.
"It's the principal of it," he said. "It's unfair. Why should these
students get to go to school for free just because their families are
poor?"
Kavanagh, who graduated from New York University in 1993, says students
should be able to take out loans and pay them back once they graduate.
"Leaving with a four-year degree and with only $4,000 in loans sounds like
a pretty good deal to me," Kavanagh said.
Students will appreciate their education more and take a greater sense of
pride if they pay for their own degrees, Kavanagh said.
Republican legislators in the House and the Senate are considering the
proposal, said Kavanagh, who has been involved in closed-door budget
discussions in both chambers.
Instead of writing a bill, Republican leaders could tack the measure
directly on to the budget. There are more than 200 various policy changes
that could be enacted that way.
The current list of changes is unavailable as lawmakers have refused to
make them public. For the past several weeks, GOP legislative leaders have
been meeting with other lawmakers in small groups and individually to try
to guage support for a GOP budget proposal.
Kavanagh says there's been little resistance among his Republican
colleagues at the Capitol when he brings up changing what he describes as
"Crow's policy" - a reference to Arizona State University President
Michael Crow -- and an ASU practice of providing low-income students who
qualify with free tuition.
He also added that the measure should make it into the final version of
any budget deal. It's unknown when that deal will be completed.
Rep. David Schapira, who teaches at ASU, says the proposed changes
could have negative consequences for poorer students.
"Why can't a person just pay off a $4,000 loan?" Schapira asked
Kavanagh in an informal exchange on the House floor after most everyone
had left one day last week. "Have you seen the job market?"
He also was worried about breaking a deal with students already attending
school. He said it would be unfair to tell them now to "start coughing up
some dough."
"If we do this, we'd be reneging on the deal we made with students,"
Schapira said.
It's unclear if the proposal would affect students already attending
school or only incoming students. Kavanagh said lawmakers would not break
any deals with curent students.
Right now, students coming from families making less than $40,000 a year
are eligible for free tuition, Kavanagh said.
Terri Shafer, an ASU spokeswoman, said university officials would not have
any comment on the proposal because they hadn't seen it. She also did not
provide details on the number of students who might be affected if the
proposal were to become law.
Under the GOP proposal, students with merit-based or athletic scholarships
would not be asked to pay a minimum tuition. Veterans also would not be
asked to meet a minimum tuition level.
Kavanagh said lawmakers recognize the value of athletics to the
universities and their ability to raise money from alumni.
"Do you really want to see the ASU basketball team go to the bottom and
lose all that revenue?" Kavanagh said.
[Return to top]
Schapira vows to take up students' cause in budget battle
By Kelsey
Hazlewood
Arizona Republic
January 10, 2009
State legislators go
back to work Monday, and Rep. David Schapira of Tempe is putting on
his gloves.
Schapira says he
will be working to spare education spending from being cut too deep by
budget reductions. The $9.9 billion state budget is $1.4 billion to $1.6
billion in the red, and the budget cuts are one plan to help balance it
out.
"I think it's important
that we don't solve the state's deficit on the backs of students,"
Schapira said. "My biggest fear is that we pull out of this economic
crisis by doing just that."
The Tempe Democrat
almost certainly will face a difficult battle. Some top Republican leaders
have already predicted that substantial budget cuts for education will be
necessary, considering the size of the deficit and the limited options for
major cuts. Additionally, Schapira and other Democrats won't have
Janet Napolitano to fight the battle for education money this year.
Other Tempe lawmakers
were unavailable for comment this week.
Schapira's
legislative district includes a number of different schools including
Arizona State University, and large portions of both the Tempe Union High
School District and the Tempe Elementary School District.
"There has to be someone
down here who is fighting for education funding, and I see that as one of
my roles," Schapira said.
Like many other
legislators, Schapira wants to see the budget issues addressed
right away. But he also wants to make sure that the process is a
collaborative one, and that it takes place in the public eye.
"It's too much for one
person to figure out, one party to figure out, or even one chamber to
figure out," Schapira said. "When it comes down to it, it is going
to be if the majority is willing to work with the minority."
Sen. Jay Tibshraeny of
Chandler also wants the budget to be top priority starting Monday, and
even suggested holding off on all other legislation until the budgeting is
done.
"People would be a
little more motivated to get it done sooner rather than later," Tibshraeny
said. "I hope we do that in the Senate, and I hope the House will as
well."
[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 that increased fines and penalties aren't enough to change the
behavior of offenders," Rep. David Schapira, D-Tempe, who pushed
for the provision, said in a release. "It's time to think outside the box.
Ignition interlock devices will go a long to way to helping save lives in
Arizona."
Schapira added the interlock amendment to Senate Bill 1029, a DUI
bill that targets extreme drunken drivers. It was sponsored by Sen. Jim
Waring, R-Phoenix. The underlying bill will require drivers with a
blood-alcohol content above 0.20 percent to spend a full 45 days in jail
without any time suspended.
New Mexico is the only other state that requires interlock devices for all
DUI offenders.
"We expect Arizona will see a decrease in drunken driving-related
fatalities, like New Mexico, now that ignition interlock devices will be
required," Schapira said in the statement.
Previously, Arizona required the interlocks only for those convicted of
repeat or extreme DUIs. Currently, 7,000 people have the interlocks in
Arizona.
Officials expect 14,000 additional people to be subject to the law if
current conviction trends of first-time offenders hold true.
Click here to watch the Channel 10 story on David's DUI Bill.
[Return to top]
Car interlock bill for DUIs gets OK
By Dennis Welch
East Valley Tribune
May 16, 2007
Arizona drivers convicted of drunken driving
could soon have to use a device that tests their blood-alcohol level
before starting their vehicles. Senate lawmakers passed a bill Tuesday
that would make Arizona the second state in the nation to order first-time
DUI offenders to use an ignition interlock device to drive their cars.
The measure now heads to Gov. Janet Napolitano's office. She has five days
to sign the bill, veto it or allow it to become law without her signature.
If it passes, convicted drunk drivers would be ordered to use an ignition
interlock for a year.
The device forces drivers to blow into a handheld sensor that measures the
amount of alcohol on their breath. The vehicle will not start if the
driver's blood-alcohol content (BAC) is more than .04.
In Arizona, a driver is considered legally drunk if their BAC is .08 or
more.
In addition, drivers would have to blow into the device every 15 minutes
to keep them from cheating by having their sober friends start their cars.
David Schapira, D-Tempe, said the bill is an example of "thinking
outside the box" to reduce the number of drunk drivers.
Right now, fines and penalties for first-time offenders can approach
$1,500. And only repeat offenders or drivers convicted of an extreme DUI
are ordered to use an interlock device.
Anyone caught driving with a BAC above .15 or can be convicted of extreme
DUI. Same goes for those who blow a .08 if they have a suspended license
or were driving with a child in the vehicle.
Schapira modeled the proposal using a piece of legislation that
passed in 2005 in New Mexico, the only state in the country with such a
law.
One year later, the number of drunk driving-related deaths in New Mexico
had dropped 15 percent.
Schapira said other factors could have attributed to the decrease
in DUI arrests, but he expects to see a similar trend in Arizona if the
bill passes.
"The numbers and the data are in our favor to make an educated guess," he
said. "Look, we've already increased jail time and the fines. This is a
different way to approach the problem."
There were 303 drunk driving-related deaths last year, according to
figures from the Governor's Office of Highway Safety. That accounts for
almost 34 percent of the state's 899 driving-related fatalities.
Michael Haggerty, deputy director for the Governor's Office of Highway
Safety, said roughly 60,000 DUI citations were issued in the state last
year.
Opponents of the bill fear it could have an adverse affect on tourism by
keeping travelers away from the state. But supporters of the measure
believe tough DUI laws still are needed to cut down on the number of drunk
drivers.
"If I saw that the number of drunk drivers were going down then I'd say
our laws were sufficient. But they're not," said Sen. Chuck Gray, R-Mesa,
who is a former police officer.
However, lobbyists who represent Arizona restaurants and liquor
distributors were surprised the bill passed as it was written. Donald
Isaacson, a lobbyist representing Arizona Licensed Beverage Association,
said he thought there was a deal in the works for a lighter version of the
bill.
Under that agreement, Isaacson said only drivers who were also convicted
of a moving violation or caused a crash would have been required to use
the interlock device.
"This will have a chilling affect on people wanting to go out and have a
good time," Isaacson said.
The measure also ratchets up penalties for drivers convicted of driving
with blood alcohol content (BAC) at or above .20. If found guilty, drivers
would have to serve a minimum of 45 days in jail.
In addition, extreme DUI offenders who were convicted of a second DUI
would serve at least 180 days in jail.
[Return to top]
Who's Hot
The Arizona Republic
April 15, 2007
Hot: Rep. David Schapira, D-Tempe. Because he is a freshman
legislator and a member of a minority party, it seemed highly unlikely
that Schapira would be able to accomplish much of anything during
the current legislative session. But his amendment to a get-tough DUI bill
could be one of the most substantial pieces of legislation of 2008. The
amendment to the bill by Sen. Jim Waring, R-Phoenix, which gained
preliminary approval in the House this week, requires that all convicted
drunken drivers have their cars equipped with breath-testing machines that
prevent vehicles from starting if drivers have been drinking.
[Return to top]
Teeth added to DUI bill
By Jessica Coomes
The Arizona Republic
April 12, 2007
A get-tough DUI bill got even tougher Thursday when a state lawmaker
suggested that all convicted drunken drivers have their cars equipped with
breath-testing machines that prevent vehicles from starting if drivers
have been drinking.
The House preliminarily approved the last-minute measure, and Rep.
David Schapira, D-Tempe, said he expects his idea has enough support
to head to the governor's desk.
"Ultimately, it takes the weapon out of the hands of the drunk driver,"
said Ericka Espino, state executive director of Mothers Against Drunk
Driving.
Ignition interlock devices cost about $120 to install and up to $70 to
monitor each month, Schapira said. Offenders would pick up the
cost, he said, and the devices would stay on for one year.
"It will be an additional cost (for offenders), but it will be minor
compared to the fines they already have to pay," he said. "I don't think
the cost burden should be on the state. If someone commits the crimes,
that should be their burden."
Schapira's proposal piggybacks off of a bill sponsored by Sen. Jim
Waring, R-Phoenix, Senate Bill 1029, which would create a new category for
the most extreme DUI offenders. Those convicted of driving with a
blood-alcohol content of 0.20 percent or more would spend 45 days in jail.
Now, Waring said, "it's really two bills for the price of one."
Ignition interlock devices still will allow the car to start if the driver
has a small amount of alcohol in his or her system, but the amount is less
than the 0.08 percent limit.
The ignition interlock device proposal came as a surprise to Espino.
"We had talked about doing this, and we honestly didn't think we had much
of a shot this year," Espino said. " . . . To get something like this
through in such a short time is pretty much unheard of. We certainly are
thrilled."
Schapira proposed the devices at the beginning of the legislative
session in House Bill 2730, but Republican leaders did not give the bill a
committee hearing, so it has not received public comment.
The new proposal still needs final approval from the full House, and the
Senate would need to concur with the changes, which Waring said he would
support.
New Mexico was the first state to require the devices for all convicted
drunken drivers, and Espino said alcohol-related fatalities in that state
have dropped.
In Arizona, she said, the bill "will reduce some of the traffic crashes
and fatalities involving alcohol, and ultimately I believe it'll send a
message to people that we will no longer tolerate drinking and driving
because it is a crime, and it's not being taken seriously as such.
"And unfortunately here in Arizona, we have not seen a decline in the
numbers of fatalities, and for some reason monetary fines don't seem to be
working."
Click here to watch the Channel 3 story on David's DUI Bill.
[Return to top]
University students to
lawmakers: Match financial aid trust
By Bill Coates
Arizona Capitol Times
April 4,
2007
High cost of higher education
Joaquin Rios raises a fist in a rally at the Capitol today calling for
increased financial aid for Arizona university students. About 50
students and a handful of lawmakers took part. Photo by Bill Coates
With the rallying cry of “yee
haw,” a group of Arizona university students today called on the
Legislature to put more money into the state’s college financial aid
program.
A handful of lawmakers joined
about 50 students at the rally. It started at Wesley Bolin Plaza and ended
up on the Capitol grounds between the House and Senate.
At one point, Rep. David
Schapira, D-17, took the bullhorn and singled out other lawmakers as they
made their way to their respective chambers. He called out to them and
said, if they supported increased financial aid for students, shout “yee
haw!”
Schapira got “yee haws” from
Reps. Lena Saradnick, Steve Farley and Mark Anderson and Sen. Karen
Johnson. Sen. Jack Harper qualified his response.
“For engineering majors – yee
haw!” Harper shouted.
Sen. Ken Chreuvront refused to
show his support – or more to the point, yee haw – and was roundly booed
by the students. Schapira told the group Cheuvront was just joking.
The rally’s organizer, the
Arizona Students’ Association, is asking the Legislature to approve a
$13.4 million match for the Arizona Financial Aid Trust. The trust, says
ASA organizers, is the only direct financial aid the state provides
instate students attending Arizona universities.
One percent of resident
undergraduate tuition fees goes into AFAT. The state is supposed to match
student contributions to AFAT by a 2-to-1 ratio.
The Legislature has failed to
fund AFAT at the minimum authorized by law, say Tiffanny Troidl, ASA
lobbyist.
In addition, “Tuition has
increased more than 70 percent in the last five years at Arizona’s public
universities,” ASA said in a prepared released.
Reps. Jackie Thrasher, D-10,
and Jennifer Burns, R-25, spoke in support of increased AFAT funding to a
gathering of students at Wesley Bolin Plaza before the march on the
Capitol.
“We most likely will see some
amount of money for AFAT in the budget,” Burns said before the event. She
couldn’t predict what the Legislature would do, however.
Troidl said the governor’s
proposed budget includes the amount being sought by ASA.
[Return to top]
GOP to appeal fed ruling on English learner case
By Howard Fischer
East Valley Tribune
March 30, 2007
Republican legislative leaders decided Thursday to appeal a federal court
ruling that Arizona still isn’t complying with laws to ensure all students
have the opportunity to learn English.
Senate President Tim Bee, R-Phoenix, said he and other GOP leaders believe
a measure approved last session meets the federal requirements.
Bee said they disagree with last week’s decision by U.S. District Court
Judge Raner Collins, who said the funding in the legislation is
insufficient to do the job right.
Lawmakers will immediately ask the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for a
stay on Collins’ directive that they enact a new plan by the end of this
session.
Bee said there is no way the appellate court could consider the merits of
the state’s appeal by the time the session ends — something he said could
occur as soon as the middle of next month.
Attorney Tim Hogan, who represents parents of students in the Nogales
Unified School District who filed the lawsuit, said he will fight the
Legislature’s request.
Hogan wants the deadline — and the possibility of courtordered sanctions
for failure to comply — to pressure lawmakers to come up with a solution
before they go home.
The decision to appeal drew stinging rebukes from Democratic legislators.
They pointed out the lawsuit was filed in 1992, and it has been seven
years since another federal judge first ruled the state isn’t meeting its
obligations.
Rep. David Schapira, D-Tempe, said failure to provide more funds
for English instruction programs hurts more than students who come to
school speaking another language. He said school districts, which must
make these students proficient, have been robbing money from other
programs.
For example, he said Tempe Union High School District is weighing whether
to stop offering special programs for “gifted” students.
“We know it’s extremely important to make sure that our best and brightest
students are educated and prepared to become leaders of this country
someday,” Schapira said. “Those kids ... are suffering.”
The state currently provides about an extra $365 a year for each of the
approximately 135,000 students classified as English language learners.
Last year’s legislation boosted that to about $444.
Collins said that figure bears no relationship to actual costs. He said
evidence was presented that the Nogales district, taking money from other
sources, spends nearly an extra $1,570 per student.
[Return to top]
'Terrible' talk on House floor
By Amanda J. Crawford
The Arizona Republic
Mar. 18, 2007 12:00 AM
Rep. David Schapira, D-Tempe, had uttered only four words about a
bill on teacher certification fees Thursday when Speaker Pro Tempore Rep.
Bob Robson cut him off from the speaker's seat:
"This bill is terrible," Schapira said.
Apparently, calling a bill "terrible" while Robson is at the helm crosses
the line.
"We need to stick to terms of collegiality here," he said, chastising the
young Democrat for impugning the sponsor of the bill and his motives.
Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, who has leveled more than her fair share of harsh
critiques on Republican measures, jumped to Schapira's defense. She
said she would not call the bill terrible or wonderful or good or bad or
any of a number of other adjectives. "But saying this bill is a 'terrible
bill' is not impugning the motive of the sponsor," she argued, noting that
legislators regularly call bills good or bad or many other things. "It's a
person's opinion."
Insider was thoroughly confused at this point. What exactly does impugn
mean?
According to Webster's New World Dictionary impugn means to: "1) attack
physically. 2) to attack by argument or criticism; oppose or challenge as
false or questionable."
[Return to top]
Chance meeting during campaign results in
bill on cancer screenings
By Jessica Coomes
The Arizona Republic
February 25, 2007
While knocking on doors during his campaign, Rep. David Schapira
met a woman with colon cancer.
She found out about her condition only when she started having digestive
problems because her health insurance company did not pay for preventative
cancer screenings.
Schapira's empathy for the woman's situation is rooted in his own
experiences with cancer: He was born with a skin-cancer tumor on his face,
and all four of his grandparents had the disease.
In response, Schapira, a Democrat from Tempe, wrote a bill that
would require insurance companies to cover various cancer screenings once
patients reach a certain ages.
"It fit right in with my legislative agenda," he said.
It would benefit the 8 percent of insured people whose insurance companies
do not pay for cancer screenings, such as mammograms and colonoscopy
exams, he said.
The proposal would not benefit uninsured people.
House Bill 2086 was the first bill Schapira introduced as a
lawmaker.
It narrowly passed the House Financial Institutions and Insurance
Committee, 5-4.
Now it appears to be trapped without a scheduled hearing in the House
Health Committee, which would prevent it from moving forward in the
lawmaking process.
When Schapira was born, he had a quarter-sized skin cancer tumor on
his left cheek.
Doctors removed the tumor, but it grew back three times, so Schapira
had surgeries when he was 4, 8 and 12 years old.
He now is 27, and the cancer has not been back.
As he grew up, he saw all four his grandparents fight cancer, which
prompted him to join the American Cancer Society.
He worked for the organization for a year, coordinating Relay for Life
cancer-survivor events throughout the Southwest.
[Return to top]
Legislators entertain teachers' pay boost
By Colleen Sparks
The Arizona Republic
February 16, 2007
Southeast Valley teachers gearing up for an upcoming teacher lobbying
effort shadowed legislators this week and got some good news while at the
state Capitol.
The Senate K-12 Education Committee on Wednesday approved a bill that
would raise the starting pay for full-time teachers to $35,000 and raise
pay for others in education, too.
Members of the 34,000-member Arizona Education Association, including
teachers from the Gilbert, Chandler, Mesa and Kyrene districts, met with
Arizona senators and representatives.
Kathy Ray,a first-grade teacher at Mesa's Salk Elementary, and a regional
representative with the Mesa Education Association, told Rep. David
Schapira, D-Tempe, that her starting salary eight years ago was less
than she made a decade before when she was selling Estee Lauder cosmetics.
"I began teaching at lower pay than selling expensive lipstick," Ray said.
"I'm very good at teaching children to read. It saddens me that the state
doesn't put a priority" on students' reading. Schapira is
sponsoring a teacher pay hike bill in the House.
Rep. Ed Ableser, D-Tempe, met with some of the teachers Wednesday and said
in a telephone interview Thursday, "I'm in total support of raising our
(teacher pay) minimum. It reflects the esteem of the profession."
The association represents teachers, bus drivers, secretaries and other
support staff. A larger group of educators from across the state are
expected at the Capitol for Education Day on March 7. They face federal
and state requirements yet don't receive the compensation to keep them
from going into other professions, said junior high teacher Kirk Hinsey, a
Tempe resident who is vice president of the Mesa Education Association.
"Teaching has changed," Hinsey told Schapira. "It's more stressful.
I'm working harder than ever.
"We're not attracting quality teaching," he added, suggesting that higher
pay would attract better teachers.
Schapira, who taught math for 2 1/2 years before joining the
Legislature, said he's optimistic that the bill will pass.
The state group also wants:
• An Arizona professional teacher standards board.
• A ban on the leasing of school employees through private companies.
• Repeal of private school vouchers and corporate tuition tax credit
programs.
[Return to top]
2 new Arizona legislators charged with idealism
By Michael Grady
East Valley Tribune
January 14, 2007
David Schapira was 16 years old, aspiring toward medical school,
when his grandmother took him to Washington. “This was during the
government budget shutdown in December of ’95,” Schapira says.
“Nothing was open.” The Smithsonian? Closed. The galleries? Closed.
“We wanted to go to the Lincoln Memorial. But the Park Service guy who
de-ices the steps was sent home, so you couldn’t go up,” he says.
So, the future Arizona legislator went to Congress to see GridlockLand.
“We watched senators debating the budget. You could see the importance of
it: Everything had stopped. Families were sitting at home over the
holidays with no salary,” Schapira says. “It fascinated me. That,
and the fact that I hated biology, was enough to interest me in politics.”
The face of state government changed dramatically Monday as 17 new House
members took the oath from former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day
O’Connor. In House District 17, Schapira and fellow Democrat Ed Ableser
see a bright future ahead, though neither one has seen his 30th birthday.
Is this a fresh approach to government? Or the triumph of inexperience?
Look past the tiny ages on Tempe/south Scottsdale’s new legislators and
you’ll find two policy and classroom veterans with packed résumés, fightin’
words and an eagerness to get busy.
HIT THE GROUND RUNNING
“I’m just moving my office,” says Ed Ableser. “Come on over.” But his desk
is already stocked and his walls are already covered with ASU memorabilia
by the time his visitor arrives. Five days before the session begins, and
Ableser is open for business. “I’m kind of a neat freak,” he says, with a
shrug.
The 28-year-old school counselor with the spiked hair and black sweater
doesn’t look like your typical legislative wonk. But he doesn’t seem out
of place, either. Two years ago, Ableser ran for the House and lost. Last
year, he filled Harry Mitchell’s Senate seat when the latter left to
campaign for Congress. So he walks the House corridors with a casual
confidence, talking about issues like water conservation.
“Very few public servants talk about water because it’s not an emotional
issue,” he says. “But science is showing us if we don’t do something now,
we’re going to be in a dire situation 15 years from now.”
Cordial and soft-spoken, Ableser picks up speed when he’s discussing
politics. “I’m working on a couple of bills today,” he says. “The staff is
helping me draft language for some ideas I have.” A quick, decisive start
is important because the lawmaking process can gum up quickly. He nods
toward two stacks of business cards, each about 3 inches high. “These are
lobbyists, and other people who want to talk to me.”
Schapira has a similar stack. But he, too, is determined to hit the
ground running. “I’m working on six bills,” he says over a bagel platter
at Chompie’s in Tempe — a favored haunt, which he might use as a field
office. “If lobbyists want to have lunch with me, they can come out here,
spend their money in Tempe,” he chuckles.
Schapira draws a hard line, though, even with lunch: “I’m not going
to let them buy lunch. We’ll split the check. I don’t want to go down that
road.” He is 6 feet 5 inches and gregarious, with a big voice, a quick
grin and a lot of life experience. In his 26 years, Schapira has
worked for former South Dakota Democratic Sen. Tom Daschle, run Terry
Goddard’s 2002 attorney general campaign...and had cancer four times.
“I was born with a rare, congenital melanoma,” he says, pointing to a
faint scar by his left ear. “Four surgeries between birth and 16.”
One of his six bills calls for expanded insurance coverage on cancer
screenings, including yearly mammograms for women over 40.
“Current guidelines only mandate a mammogram every two years between 40
and 50,” he says. “A woman could get screened, develop a lump the next
day, and die before her next exam is covered.”
Ableser and Schapira have different peripheral interests, but
neither hesitates when asked about priorities.
“We really have to improve education in this state,” Ableser says.
“Education, definitely.” Schapira says. “That’s my other five
bills.”
Ableser still sees himself as a mental health counselor for the Roosevelt
School District, and his election as a victory for the kids he works with.
“Most of them don’t have parents, they’re in foster care.” he says. “My
job is to encourage each one toward positive choices. But they think
college is as far off as 5 or 6 million dollars would be to you or me. I’m
lucky enough now (as a legislator) to help that kid reach college and be
successful.”
Aligning good government with benevolent citizenship is also a recurring
theme in his work at Tempe’s University Presbyterian Church.
“Ed has been very active in our social programs,” associate pastor Craig
Miller says, “particularly in our outreach group Crux.” There, Ableser
leads discussions exploring the ethical dimensions of social issues like
homelessness, poverty and immigration.
“It blends politics, faith and spirituality,” Miller explains. “Ed comes
from a blended family, with a Christian/Jewish influence, and has always
been interested in the convergence between faith and politics.”
Politics led Schapira from the classrooms of George Washington
University to John McCain’s press office, then Daschle’s staff and then
... back into the classroom.
“Politics taught me how important education was,” he explains. “And I
thought, ‘If I really want to help society, the most important thing I
could do was teach.’”
So, he left politics to teach math at North Canyon High School. Robert
Black, once his teacher there, became a colleague.
“It’s easy to talk about education without ever stepping back into the
classroom,” Black says. “David stepped back into the classroom and
became a very good teacher. But it is hard.”
“I enjoyed the kids,” Schapira says, “but was disappointed by the
support from the state, which was nothing.” His remedial algebra class had
36 students and 35 desks.
“That’s just unacceptable,” he says. “(Arizona) being 50th in the nation
in per-pupil spending? That’s unacceptable.”
He began to reconsider his political skills. “I taught 155 kids a day, and
I could impact their lives,” he says. “But I think there are bigger
problems that need to be addressed.”
When they survived the Democratic primary, the two young candidates
decided to campaign as a team.
“A lot of hard days,” Schapira recalls. “We knocked on 7,000
doors.”
The two targeted split and solicited undecided voters in their very
bipartisan district.
“You didn’t have time to look up and see how you were doing.” Ableser
laughs. “But by election night, I said to Dave, ‘I feel good.’ ”
ENDURANCE AND ENERGY
On the Legislature’s opening day Monday, the two blend youthful enthusiasm
and pragmatism.
“It was awesome to have Sandra Day O’Connor swear us in!” Schapira
says. “And it’s neat to be on the floor. But you have to get comfortable
fast. That first day is a workday. We went to work.”
By Tuesday morning, he had introduced two bills, with plans to introduce
three or four more by Thursday.
Ableser and Schapira brace for the long hours and frantic schedules
ahead, each hoping his girlfriend will understand. “It’ll be tough,”
Ableser says. “But she knows this is important, and you just hope the
relationship survives.”
“I think (my girlfriend) would like to know how this will work, as well,”
Schapira chuckles, “but we’ll find the time.”
Both define success this session as guiding their ideas through the
committees and onto the floor for an up-or-down vote.
“We need to hold colleagues and committee chairs responsible. We need to
pursue worthy legislation,” says Ableser, who will still work 20 hours a
week as a counselor. “House members only make $24,000 a year, and I’ve got
a dog to support,” he says, grinning.
“But no, I have to keep my job. Those kids are my lobbyists. They’re my
daily dose of ‘oomph’ on what to fight for.”
The two have devoted much energy deflecting concerns about their youth.
But does youth offer any advantage?
“Energy,” Schapira says. “I think some folks (down at the Capitol)
might be a little jaded working with the system.” But he doesn’t like the
answer and thinks on it a moment.
“You know what youth brings? Higher stakes. I have more at stake than
(older) members because the changes we make now will affect me for a lot
longer.
“The advantage of being young is that you have to be forward-thinking. You
have to plan further in the future because it will affect you for a lot
longer.”
[Return to top]
This freshman has a fresh idea for education
By Le Templar
East Valley Tribune
January 14, 2007
Some Republican insiders shook their heads at a recent Tribune editorial
that called for the GOP majority in the Legislature to allow more bills
sponsored by minority Democrats to receive committee hearings.
Apparently, we in the media are too just naive to understand how
real-world politics work. But a bill filed last week by Rep. David
Schapira of Tempe is one example that Democrats do have a good idea
every now and then.
HB2206 seeks to ease a chronic shortage of qualified schoolteachers by
creating a new incentive for college students to get their teaching
degrees and go to work in struggling parts of the state. The bill would
create a new college loan program administered by the Arizona Board of
Regents for in-state tuition and fees at the state’s community colleges
and public universities. Students who get their teaching degrees and go
into classrooms where the state Board of Education has declared a teacher
shortage would have a year of their loans forgiven for each year they stay
on the job.
The bill also allows graduates to delay completing their teacher service
if they go on active military duty or take part in some other good cause.
Schapira said the bill would allow up to 300 loans a year, at an
initial cost of $1.5 million, because that’s about the number of emergency
teaching certificates the state issues to college graduates without
teaching degrees for schools unable to find qualified teachers.
I disagree with Schapira’s approach that only education graduates
can make good teachers. But many schools do have trouble filling all of
their classrooms every year. And HB2206 would allow teachers in the loan
program to work for charter schools as well as districts. So this is an
intriguing proposal that deserves serious attention.
Politics as usual at the Capitol normally means a first-year Democrat such
as Schapira would find it nearly impossible to get such a spending
bill heard in committee, the critical first step in getting legislation to
the governor’s desk. This year might be different, with more Democrats in
the state House and that party’s leader re-elected as governor.
Schapira also has boosted the chances for his bill by rounding up
key Republican co-sponsors such as Rep. Mark Anderson of Mesa, chairman of
the House K-12 Education Committee, and Sen. Karen Johnson of Mesa,
chairwoman of the Senate K-12 Education Committee.
But less hopeful is the fact that Schapira doesn’t have any
sponsors from Republican leadership, including the budget-writing
committees. That’s a sign that Schapira will have to find someone
among his Republican colleagues to champion HB2206, or the bill probably
won’t get very far.
[Return to top]
Winning Democratic duo see youth as big plus
By Garin Groff
East Valley Tribune
December 1, 2006
Twenty-six-year-old Ed Ableser enthusiastically knocked on thousands of
doors and asked voters to elect him to the state House two years ago,
every time getting the same response from anybody with political savvy:
Beat it, kid.
“You’re too young. Go help with another
campaign and years down the road you’ll have your time,” Ableser recalled.
“Every door I went to, in the political-hack realm, that’s what I went
through.”
The skeptics were right. Ableser lost — but not by much.
He tried again at 28, and in November he clobbered legislative veteran
Laura Knaperek. His 26-year-old running mate, David Schapira, also
won — giving the south Scottsdale and Tempe legislative district a pair of
twentysomething lawmakers.
Their victory stunned many who follow politics in District 17, a place
where Republicans enjoy a slight edge over Democrats in voter
registration.
Many politicos assumed Knaperek would win. After all, she’d been in the
Legislature 12 years, had strong name recognition and was poised to take a
leadership post. The pair of Democrats, on the other hand, had far less
name identification, less political experience and were a couple decades
younger than the typical Arizona lawmaker.
The Democratic duo navigated through the perfect political storm.
They knocked on 7,000 doors to meet voters personally, and appealed to
Democrats and a huge pool of independent voters in that district.
They boasted endorsements from Gov. Janet Napolitano and former Tempe
Mayor Harry Mitchell, whose longtime popularity helped him edge out J.D.
Hayworth for a congressional seat in the same election. And they rode the
Democratic wave that ousted Republicans across the nation.
The importance of each factor is debatable.
Ableser insists the anti-Republican trend wasn’t key to the victory.
Rather, Ableser said he and Schapira made clear arguments for their
causes: Boost funding for the state’s under performing education system,
sanctions for businesses that hire illegal immigrants, better border
security and a water plan to ensure the booming state doesn’t go dry.
Knaperek did not return a phone call for comment.
Republican political consultant Stan Barnes said the Democratic surge was
responsible far more than the individual candidates or the issues they
pushed.
“It was the wave and the turnout that did it,”
said Barnes, a former Mesa lawmaker.
“Rep. Knaperek is a fine legislator and was recognized by many in her
district as someone who gets the job done. But every election cycle brings
its own set of challenges and variables, and 2006 was the year of the
Democratic comeback, nationally and in Arizona,” he said.
Knaperek, 51, has long associated herself with education and youth issues,
important in a district that’s home to Arizona State University. Her
running mate, Dale Despain, 66, also made education a key issue by touting
his 30-year career as a teacher and school administrator. They even were
backed by Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl.
Schapira scoffed at the Democratic surge theory leading them to
victory.
“It’s a load of malarkey,” he said. “If we beat her by 300 votes, that
would be one thing — but we beat her by almost 3,000 votes.”
Knaperek and Despain talked of tax cuts, border security, support of
school vouchers and increased teacher pay.
Schapira and Ableser said they defeated Knaperek because she hadn’t
been able to improve border and education issues despite past promises.
They favored more education funding, criticized tax cuts, slammed school
vouchers and advocated employer sanctions as a key way to reduce illegal
immigration.
“We met more voters and talked to more people,
and our message stuck,” Ableser said.
Democratic consultant Bob Grossfeld said several forces converged to help
the Democrats and doom Knaperek. Her high-profile status hurt her when the
Republican image was suffering, he said. The Democrats ran stronger
candidates than in the past, and the Mitchell-Hayworth race got Democrats
fired up, he said.
“There are just times when there are stronger forces at work than the
voting record or positions of ideology of the candidate,” Grossfeld said.
Ableser had one other thing going for him. He was appointed this spring to
replace Mitchell when he resigned to run against Hayworth. That made
Ableser an incumbent of sorts, Grossfeld said, and boosted his credibility
as more than a young political wannabe.
Ableser dismissed the theory that voters supported the young duo because
they were already on the side of Democrats or Mitchell.
“I would say the opposite. I would say Mitchell won because of David
and I, and I’m completely serious about that,” Ableser said.
He and Schapira carried Mitchell literature and signs as they
campaigned, giving Mitchell a boost and freeing him up to work other
areas.
The moderate area should mean the Democratic duo stand a good chance of
fending off Republican challengers two years from now, Grossfeld said.
“I say that knowing full well the Republicans have got to be sitting
there, plotting to turn their ship around,” he said.
[Return to top]
|
|
