Steller: Homebuilders get an F for TUSD mailer

“TUCSON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT IS FAILING” its headline screams.

I was one of the many lucky district residents who received the mailer, which supports the election of Republican incumbent Michael Hicks and GOP challenger Debe Campos-Fleenor to the two available board seats.

The misspelling of Campos-Fleenor’s first name (they spelled it “Debbie”) didn’t strike me as much as did the contortions SAHBA went through in trying to prove their questionable assertion.

For example, to prove that TUSD has “Failing Ethics,” the SAHBA mailer cites a headline from the Tucson Citizen in February 2009: ”Three TUSD officials on leave after bid-rigging probe.” Yes, they cited a long-closed newspaper’s story about a case that took place five years and two superintendents ago, just after Hicks took office.

Under the heading “Failing Students,” the mailer cites a 2012 story from Arizona Public Media, “TUSD Faces Federal Discrimination Probe.” Reading it, you have to wonder if SAHBA even read beyond the headline. That year, a Phoenix group filed a civil-rights complaint against TUSD saying the district discriminated against Latinos by failing to have meetings in a big enough room when they knew overflow crowds were likely. The district settled the complaint earlier this year by — imagine this — agreeing to hold meetings expected to draw big crowds at a larger venue than the board room.

How that case demonstrated that the district is “failing students,” I’m not sure.

But the worst example, under that same heading, may be the citation of a KVOA TV report, under the headline “TUSD receives ‘C’ letter grade for 2013 academic performance.” In Arizona’s current system of accountability for performance, the word “failing” has a specific meaning that’s applicable to some schools and districts. While a C grade is nothing to brag about, by definition a district that receives a C grade is not failing. It is passing.

When I asked Hicks what he thought of the mailer, he defended its message.

“I think in many aspects we are failing. We continue to lose students,” he said.

Nevertheless, in terms of proving its case, I give SAHBA’s mailer an F.

Rowley toxic to democrats

Rob Rowley has been around local Democratic circles long enough to earn a reputation as a true believer.

That’s the nicest way I can put it.

The more frank way of putting it is that Rowley, who heads a one-man operation called Stonewall Democrats of Arizona and is registered as its lobbyist, has acted like an online attack dog. He’s demonized political opponents — especially so-called “teabagger terrorists” — and made excessively personal attacks on them. For example, he repeatedly posted online the home address of a local tea-party activist.

These tendencies were crystallized in Rowley’s one-word online reaction to Democratic state Sen. Catherine Miranda’s endorsement of Republican Doug Ducey for governor. He called her a vulgar four-letter word for female anatomy that starts with C. Yes, that word.

When initially asked to apologize by a Phoenix political blogger, he didn’t, though later he changed his mind and apologized. Democratic candidate for governor Fred DuVal disavowed Stonewall’s endorsement of him after the incident.

Apparently his campaign had made the mistake of thinking this Stonewall is a substantial group when it is actually the shell of an old organization by the same name, formerly run by ex-state Sen. Paula Aboud.

I’m familiar with Rowley’s excesses in political discussion, having blocked him from my Facebook page for getting too personal and vicious against people with whom he disagrees. It seems the Pima County Democratic Party is finally getting wise as well.

“He has made a lot of comments that do not help his cause,” Chairman Don Jorgensen told me Thursday.

Jorgensen told me he’s asked Rowley, who did not return my call or email, to take some time away from party politics to “reflect on his actions and the consequences.” It would be wise for Democratic candidates and campaigns to take some time away from Rowley as well.

NO BRAKES
ON DARK MONEY

In July, the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office started an inquiry into whether dark-money groups were illegally engaged primarily in electioneering.

The common-sense, though not legal, answer to the question is: Of course they are engaged primarily in electioneering. That’s why they exist.

But the investigation hasn’t stopped them. The group calling itself Save Our Future Now, which many believe is financed largely by Arizona Public Service Co., has been the top dark-money spender, so far putting a total of $2.8 million into Arizona campaigns. They’ve primarily supported the Republican candidates for Arizona Corporation Commission, Tom Forese and Doug Little.

In the general election campaign, the bulk of that money — $1.3 million so far — has gone against Democratic candidate Sandra Kennedy.

In his Aug. 3 reply to the Corporation Commission, Save Our Future Now attorney Kory Langhofer said 66 percent of the group’s spending had been on “social welfare” activities, making their activities legal. But he didn’t list the expenses, so it’s hard to square that claim with the fact that the group had already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to defeat Republican primary candidate Vernon Parker.

Where their money really comes from and goes is a question that, unfortunately, will not be answered before the general election.