>>> POP 123 MEANS MORE MONEY FOR
SCHOOLS.
>> OUR SALARY SCHEDULE FOR OUR
TEACHERS IS SOMETHING THAT, YOU
KNOW, REALLY NEEDS TO BE FIXED
AND OBVIOUSLY IT'S PART OF A
BIGGER PICTURE.
BUT AS A SCHOOL DISTRICT WE NEED
TO LOCK AT THAT, HOW WE
COMPENSATE OUR TEACHERS.
>> BUT SOME THINK THE PLAN IS A
BAD ONE.
>> THE LEGISLATURE HAS NOT
FUNDED THE SCHOOLS SINCE 2011,
MAYBE 2009, ACCORDING TO WHAT
THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOING.
WE FEEL THE LEGISLATURE AND THE
GOVERNOR ARE NOT FOLLOWING THE
LIE.
IF THERE WAS A SUPREME COURT,
THE SUPREME COURT ORDERED THE
LEGISLATURE TO PAY $380 MILLION
A YEAR.
THEY HAVE NOT PAID IT.
THEY HAVE THE MONEY.
THEY'RE NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW.
>>> PLUS A LOOK AT PROP 124
MAKING CHANGES TO PUBLIC SAFETY
PENSION CHANGES.
THIS IS "ARIZONA WEEK."
♪♪
>>> HELLO AND WELCOME TO
"ARIZONA WEEK."
I'M CHRISTOPHER CONOVER IN FOR
LORRAINE.
MAY 17th IS A SPECIAL ELECTION
TO DEAL WITH TWO PROPOSITIONS.
THE FIRST PROP 123 TRIPLES THE
PAYOFF FROM THE STATE TRUST FUND
TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOR TEN YEARS.
IF VOTERS APPROVE THE BILL, IT
SETTLES.
>> DAVID, THANKS FOR HAVING US
OUT HERE TODAY.
>> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
>> TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT
THE DISTRICT.
>> UL THAT VALLEY IS 20 MILES
WEST OF DOWNTOWN TUCSON.
MADE UP OF TWO SCHOOLS.
WE'RE A DISTRICT OF 70 0
STUDENTS TOTAL.
PRESCHOOL TO EIGHTH GRADE.
WE HAVE A HIGH FREE AND REDUCED
COUNT, ABOUT 97% OF OUR STUDENTS
ARE ON FREE AND REDUCED LUNCH.
WE'RE RURAL, WE'RE SMALL AND A
REALLY NICE HOW MANYTOWN
COMMUNITY FEEL.
WE HAVE ABOUT 40% OF THE
TEACHERS OR SO ACTUALLY LIVE AND
WORK IN THE COMMUNITY.
SO THEY HAVE A LOT OF TIGHT
RELATIONSHIPS WITH OUR STUDENTS.
>> SO WHAT SORTS OF CHALLENGES
DOES THE SCHOOL DISTRICT FACE?
>> WE HAVE A LOT OF THE SAME
CHALLENGES THAT ANY SCHOOL
DISTRICT HAS.
WE ARE -- IT'S HARD TO GET
TEACHERS AND RETAIN TEACHERS.
ONE OF OUR FOCUSES SINCE I'VE
BEEN HERE, SINCE I STARTED TWO
YEARS AGO IS FOCUS ON TEACHER
RETENTION AND RECRUITING
TEACHERS.
AND WE STILL HAVE TEACHER
VACANCIES THAT WE'VE HAD THE
ENTIRE SCHOOL YEAR.
SO, YOU KNOW, ONE OF OUR BIG
CHALLENGES IS TEACHING.
AND GETTING TEACHERS AND
SUPPORTING OUR TEACHERS.
WE ARE 20 MILES OUTSIDE OF
TUCSON.
I REALIZE THAT PEOPLE HAVE
CHOICES.
SO WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE
ULTRAVALLEY UNIQUE AND SPECIAL.
THERE'S A LOT OF TUNTS FOR OUR
TEACHERS TO DO A LOT OF
DIFFERENT THINGS HERE.
SO WE'RE TRYING TO TURN OUR
CHALLENGES INTO POSITIVES AS WE
BUILD ULTRA VALLEY.
>> WHAT ARE SOME OF THE
POSITIVES?
YOU MENTIONED THERE'S QUITE A
FEW AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAMS.
>> HERE AT THE MIDDLE SCHOOL WE
ARE THE 21st CENTURY COMMUNITY
LEARNING GRANT WHERE WE'RE ABLE
TO PROVIDE TUTORING AND
ENRICHMENT ACTIVITIES FOR OUR
STUDENTS.
WE DO BEFORE AND AFTER SCHOOL
ACTIVITIES.
SOME OF THEM ARE AS SIMPLE AS,
YOU KNOW, THE COMPUTER LAB BEING
OPEN OR THE LIBRARY.
BUT THEN OTHERS ARE VERY
SPECIFIC.
WE HAVE COOKING, WE HAVE BAND,
GUITAR, WE HAVE DRAMA THEN WE
HAVE AFTERSCHOOL SPORTS ALSO,
INVOLVED IN ALL THAT.
AND THEN WITH ALL OF THAT COMES
TUTORING AND SPECIFIC
INTERVENTION TO HELP THE
STUDENTS BE SUCCESSFUL IN THE
CLASSROOM.
>> THIS IS A B RATED SCHOOL
DISTRICT?
>> YES, I'M PROUD TO SAY WE'RE A
B RATED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
>> ALSO ONE OF THE FEW THAT'S
GONE FROM UNDERPERFORMING TO
PERFORMING?
>> YES.
THE SCHOOL IS IDENTIFIED AS
BEING UNDER PERFORMING.
AND SEVERAL YEARS BACK THEY WERE
ABLE TO GET OUT OF SCHOOL
IMPROVEMENT, WHICH IT REALLY
GREAT ACCOMPLISHMENT FOR THE
TEACHERS AND STUDENTS HERE.
>> WHAT DO YOU ATTRIBUTE THAT
TO?
WHAT DID THAT?
>> IT GOES BACK TO THE PEOPLE
PER.
THE PEOPLE HERE AND THE KIDS
CARE AND THE ADULTS CARE.
THAT'S REALLY WHAT DRIVES
EVERYTHING.
OUR AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM IS
GETTING READY TO END IN A FEW
WEEKS BUT THE DRAMA PROGRAM
HASN'T DONE THEIR FINAL
PERFORMANCE.
I GOT 40 KIDS STAYING AFTER
SCHOOL.
I WANT TO PRACTICE UNTIL THE
LAST DAY.
THEY'RE REALLY COMMITTED.
SO WE'LL BE CONTINUING TO BUS
KIDS HOME A LITTLE BIT LATER SO
THEY CAN STAY TO GET READY FOR
THEIR "WIZARD OF OZ"
PERFORMANCE.
>> NEXT MONTH THE VOTERS HEAD TO
THE POLLS TO DECIDE ON PROP 123
TO PUT MORE MONEY IN THE
SCHOOLS.
IS THAT SOMETHING THIS DISTRICT
NEEDS?
>> THIS DISTRICT AND ALL
DISTRICTS NEED MORE MONEY, MORE
FUNDING.
WE'VE BEEN UNDER FUNDED SINCE
2010 AND WE NEED TO DO MORE.
I MEAN, CURRENTLY WE HAVE
TEACHERS HERE IN THE VALLEY
SCHOOL DISTRICT THAT HAVE TEN
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AND A
MASTER'S DEGREE MAKING $34,000 A
YEAR.
IT'S HORRIBLE.
AND SO, YES, WE DO NEED MORE
FUNDING IN EDUCATION.
I KNOW IF PROP 123 WERE TO PASS,
YOU KNOW, OUR INITIAL THING
WOULD BE TO PROVIDE KIND OF
LOYALTY STIPEND OR BONUSES TO
OUR TEACHERS IMMEDIATELY.
AND THEN GOING FORWARD WITH THE
MONEY THAT'S GOING TO COME OVER
THE NEXT TEN YEARS WOULD BE
REALLY TO LOOK AT WHAT DO WE
NEED, WHAT DO THE TEACHERS NEED.
WOULD WE PUT IT BACK INTO
TEACHER SALARIES OR SOME KIND OF
SOMETHING TO SUPPORT OUR
TEACHERS IN THE CLASSROOM.
>> HOW MUCH MONEY WOULD YOU SAY
WOULD EVENTUALLY COME TO THE
DISTRICT OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS
IF PROP 123 PASSES?
>> WELL IF PROP 123 PASSES, WE
WOULD IMMEDIATELY SEE 100 -- IN
OUR SCHOOL DISTRICT OF JUST
UNDER 700 STUDENTS WOULD BE
$130,000 TO OUR BUDGET CURRENTLY
FOR THIS YEAR.
AND THEN GOING FORWARD IT WOULD
BE, IF ALL THINGS STAYED EXACTLY
AS THEY ARE, IT WOULD BE
APPROXIMATELY $28,000 A YEAR,
AND THEN AFTER THAT WOULD BE THE
NEXT FIVE YEARS WOULD GO UP TO
OVER AROUND $40,000.
>> DOES THAT MEAN THAT YOU HIRE
MORE TEACHERS OR YOU IMPROVE
TECHNOLOGY OR RESOURCES THAT THE
SCHOOL USES?
>> OUR COMMITMENT TO THE BOARD
AND OUR COMMITMENT IS TO
MAINTAIN LOW CLASS SIZES.
SO IF WE NEEDED TO, THEN THAT
WOULD BE LIKE THIS GRADE LEVEL
IS GOING UP OR MAYBE WE USE THAT
MONEY TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL
TEACHER OR, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE
OUR NEEDS.
REALLY JUST, IT'S WHAT OUR NEEDS
AND GOALS GOING FORWARD REALLY
DECIDES WHAT WE NEEDED TO DO.
>> IF PROP 123 DOES NOT PASS,
DOES THAT PRESENT NEW CHALLENGES
OR DOES IT KIND OF THE
CHALLENGES JUST REMAIN?
>> THE CHALLENGES REMAIN.
I THINK IN EDUCATION WE'RE
REALLY GOOD AT GETTING BY AND
UNFORTUNATELY THAT'S BEEN --
IT'S A GOOD THING AND IT'S A PAD
THING.
SO WE WOULD CONTINUE TO SET OUR
GOALS, SET HIGH EXPECTATIONS FOR
OURSELVES AND REALLY WHAT DO WE
NEED TO ACCOMPLISH THEM.
BUT ANY LITTLE BIT HELPS.
AND WE NEED TO MAKE OUR TEACHERS
FEEL VALUED ANY WAY WE CAN.
AND I KNOW THAT'S ONE WAY, BEING
ABLE TO PROVIDE, YOU KNOW, MORE
RESOURCES OR COMPENSATION TO
THEM.
BUT THEN, YOU KNOW, WHAT ELSE
CAN I DO AND MY PRINCIPALS DO
AND THE WHOLE COMMUNITY DO TO
HELP SUPPORT OUR TEACHERS.
>> YOU CAME HERE FROM THE
PHOENIX AREA.
WHAT IS YOUR PERCEPTION OF HOW
ARIZONA VALUES EDUCATION MAYBE
IN SOME OF THESE SMALLER
COMMUNITIES?
>> HAVING COME FROM A BIGGER
SCHOOL DISTRICT IN PHOENIX, I'M
BLOWN AWAY ABOUT THE DRIVE AND
COMMITMENT.
EVERY EDUCATOR I'VE WORK WITH
WITH HAS THE DRIVE.
HERE THEY TAKE IT TO THE NEXT
LEVEL.
WE'RE IN BASEBALL AND SOFTBALL
SEASON NOW AND I FEEL LIKE EVERY
TEACHER IS OUT CHEERING ON THE
KIDS AND GOING TO THE GAMES.
AND INVESTED IN, YOU KNOW, GOING
ABOVE AND BEYOND.
WE HAD THIS ELABORATE EASY
MERIT, AWAKEN THE FORCE ASSEMBLY
FOR OUR STUDENTS.
EVERYBODY IS ALL HANDS ON DECK
EVERY DAY.
>> GOVERNOR DOUG DUCEY AND HIS
ELECTION RIVAL BOTH FAVOR PROP
123 BUT NOT EVERYONE DOES.
WE SAT DOWN WITH THE LEAGUE OF
WOMEN VOTERS WHO OPPOSE IT.
>> WHY IS THE LEAGUE AGAINST
THIS PROPOSITION IN.
>> WELL THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN
VOTERS OF ARIZONA STATE BOARD
VOTED TO OPPOSE THIS BASED UPON
THE FACT THAT THE LEGISLATURE
AND GOVERNOR HAVE NOT FOLLOWED
THE LAW OF THE PROPOSITION 301
IN 2000, WHICH SET ASIDE
INFLATIONARY PROVISION TO AID
PUBLIC FUNDING OF PUBLIC
SCHOOLS.
AND THEY ADDED A SIX-TENTH SALES
TAX.
THAT SALES TAX WILL END IN 2021.
NEVERTHELESS, THE LEGISLATURE
HAS NOT FUNDED THE SCHOOLS SINCE
2011, MAYBE 2009, ACCORDING TO
WHAT THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN
DOING.
NOW I HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAW.
WE FEEL THE LEGISLATURE AND THE
GOVERNOR ARE NOT FOLLOWING THE
LAW.
THERE WAS A COURT CASE, A
SUPREME COURT ORDERED THE
LEGISLATURE TO PAY $380 MILLION
A YEAR.
THEY HAVE NOT PAID IT.
THEY HAVE THE MONEY.
THEY'RE NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW.
INSTEAD THEY ARE COMING UP WITH
A WAY THAT'S VERY COMPLICATED
COMPROMISE TO SAY THAT THEY'RE
GOING TO BE FUNDING SCHOOLS.
BUT IT'S DOING AWAY WITH THE
VOTER INITIATIVE.
YOU KNOW, WE FEEL THAT TO
DISINFRANCHISEMENT OF VOTER
APPROVED LAW.
>> THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE
HEARING THIS AND THINKING WHY
NOT JUST PUT MONEY INTO THE
SCHOOLS.
THIS IS HOW IT'S HAPPENING EVEN
THOUGH THE LANGUAGE IS NOT
CORRECT.
AND YOU'RE A FORMER EDUCATOR.
>> YES.
WELL I THINK THEY SHOULD PUT
MONEY IN SCHOOLS.
THEY'VE GOT ENOUGH MONEY RIGHT
NOW TO PAY WHAT THE COURT
ORDERED THEM TO PAY.
THEY'RE NOT DOING IT.
I'M NOT SURE WHY THEY'RE NOT
DOING IT.
BUT THEY'RE NOT DOING THAT
FUNDING AND THEY'RE SETTING UP
AN ARRANGEMENT WHERE THEY'RE
GOING TO GET MORE MONEY OUT OF
THE LAND TRUST, WHICH HAS
PROVIDED MONEY FOR PUBLIC
EDUCATION AND UNIVERSITIES, BUT
GOING UP TO 6.9% WITHDRAWAL FROM
THE LAND TRUST, WHICH IS SPECIAL
HERE, WILL MEAN ACTUALLY IN TEN
YEARS THAT THE LAND TRUST WILL
NOT HAVE THE SAME CORPUS IT HAS
NOW.
I'VE BEEN TOLD THEY'D HAVE TO
MAKE 10% INTEREST A YEAR OFF OF
SELLING LAND OR LEASING LAND TO
BE ABLE TO HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT
OF MONEY IN TEN YEARS.
THEY'RE GOING TO DIMINISH THE
LAND TRUST BY TAKING MONEY FROM
IT AND USING SOME GENERAL FUND
MONEY.
WE THINK THEY'VE GOT GENERAL
FUND MONEY.
THEY HAVE NOT PAID.
COURT ORDERED THEM.
THEY'RE NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW.
ARE THEY GOING TO FOLLOW ANY
OTHER PROPOSITIONS IN THE FUTURE
THAT WE PASS HERE IN ARIZONA?
I MEAN, THAT'S -- THAT SEEMS TO
ME THE LEGISLATURE IS SAVING
THAT MONEY OR THE GOVERNOR AND
LEGISLATURE WANT THAT MONEY FOR
OTHER THINGS AND I THINK
EDUCATION IS ONE OF THE MOST
IMPORTANT THINGS THE STATE DOES.
>> WHAT ARE YOU SUPPOSING THOSE
OTHER THINGS ARE, IF IT'S NOT
EDUCATION WHICH YOU SAY IS
IMPORTANT?
>> WELL, IT APPEARS, FROM WHAT I
HAVE READ, THAT CORPORATION
BUSINESS TAX CUTS WILL PUT IN
EVERY YEAR, MAYBE $100,000 LESS
INTO THE GENERAL FUND.
THERE WILL BE LESS MONEY THERE.
AND OTHER THINGS -- WELL, WE
HAVE A LOT OF PRISONS IN
ARIZONA.
THE GOVERNOR HAS TALKED ABOUT A
SPECIAL BORDER STRIKE FORCE, I
THINK.
I'M NOT SURE ALL OF HIS
PROVISIONS OR DESIRES.
BUT A STATE SHOULD FUND PUBLIC
EDUCATION.
THAT'S PART OF THE BASIS OF OUR
COUNTRY ACHIEVING, HAVING PEOPLE
COME IN AND ACHIEVE AND BECOME
CITIZENS THAT PAY TAXES.
>> THIS IS A SPECIAL ELECTION.
DO YOU THINK THAT MANY VOTERS
ARE UNCLEAR AS TO THE ADVANTAGE
LAJ AND PERHAPS --
>> IT'S VERY COMPLICATED.
WE DID A FACT SHEET, JUST A LIST
OF FACTS.
IT WASN'T EVEN PRO AND CON.
IT WAS A LIST OF FACTS AND IT
TOOK ABOUT EIGHT OF US AROUND
THE STATE TWO WEEKS TO TRY TO
GET THIS TOGETHER AND STILL IT
LEAVES OUT INFORMATION.
THE PROBLEM, BIG PROBLEM WITH
THIS IS IT GOES AGAINST WHAT THE
VOTERS HAD DECIDED AND THEN IT
PUTS IN A LOT OF TRIGGERS OR
PROBLEMS.
FOR INSTANCE, IF THE LEGISLATIVE
PART OF PAYING FOR SCHOOLS GOES
TO 49%, THEY CAN STOP THIS
INFLATIONARY.
RIGHT NOW IT'S GOING TO BE 41%,
59% FROM THE TRUST FUND MONEY.
BUT IT MAY HIT 49% IF LESS MONEY
IS COMING IN FROM THE GENERAL
FUND FROM BUSINESS TAX CUTS
BEING LESS.
THEY SHOULD RESTORE SOME OF THE
BUSINESS TAX CUTS.
ANY SURVEY OF CEOs IN THE STATE
INDICATED THAT WE NEED TO HAVE
GOOD EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS TO
THRIVE.
AND IT SEEMS TO ME TO BE AN
UPSIDE DOWN THING TO SAY YOU'RE
GOING TO KEEP CUTTING THE
BUSINESS TAXES AND YOU'RE GOING
TO BE THRIVING WHEN YOU HAVE
LESS MONEY FOR SCHOOLS.
SCHOOLS SHOULD BE FUNDED.
THEY'RE FUNDED AT SUCH A LOW
RATE RIGHT NOW, WE'RE ABOUT 50th
IN FUNDING OF SCHOOLS.
>> AGAIN FOR THE VIEWERS WHO ARE
WATCHING SAYING THIS DOES FUND
THE SCHOOLS WITHIN YOU'RE SAYING
THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT WAY?
>> IT FUNDS A LITTLE.
MAYBE 70% OF WHAT THEY MIGHT
HAVE GOTTEN IF IT HAD BEEN DONE
AT THE RIGHT TIME.
BUT THEY'RE GOING TO HOW PART OF
THAT TAX BIT IN 2021 AND IN TEN
YEARS THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE
TAKEN A LOT OUT OF THE LAND
TRUST.
IF THEY DO THIS, THIS DOES NOT
SEEM TO BE A FAIR THING TO DO
WHEN THE LEGISLATURE HAS THE
MONEY RIGHT NOW THAT THEY COULD
PAY WHAT THE SUPREME COURT HAD
ORDERED THEM.
IT'S BACK TO THE LOWER COURT.
IF THIS FAILS, I GUESS THAT
WE'LL GO BACK TO MAYBE
ARBITRATION WITH THE COURT ON
BACK TO COURT CASES.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT LEGISLATORS
IN MANY STATES, EVEN WHEN
THEY'RE CONSERVATIVE, THEY'VE
WANTED TO IMPROVE PUBLIC
EDUCATION.
THEY'VE WANTED TO IMPROVE
UNIVERSITIES.
THEY HAVEN'T WANTED TO EXTRA
KINDS OF THINGS BY HARMING THE
PEOPLE THEY SERVE.
>> OKAY.
>> WE REALLY, WE REALLY ADVISE A
VOTE NO ON 123 AND SEE WHAT WE
CAN FIGURE OUT AFTER THAT.
>> OKAY.
SHIRLEY, THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> YOU'RE WELCOME.
THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
>>> ALSO ON THE MAY 17th BALLOT
IS PROP 124.
IT'S PART OF A RESTRUCTURING OF
THE PENSION PLAN FOR
FIREFIGHTERS AND POLICE
OFFICERS.
JIMMAN WITH THE FRATERNAL ORDER
OF POLICE SAT DOWN WITH US TO
EXPLAIN WHY POLICE AND
FIREFIGHTERS SUPPORT THIS
CHANGES.
>> FOR THOSE WHO ARE JUST
STARTING TO REALIZE THAT WE'VE
GOT A SPECIAL ELECTION COMING
UP, PROP 124 IS THE ONE THAT
DOESN'T GET TALKED ABOUT MUCH.
EXPLAIN, IF YOU CAN, IN LAYMAN'S
TERMS WHAT PROP 124 DOES.
>> PROP 124 IS RELATED TO THE
PUBLIC SAFETY PERSONNEL
RETIREMENT SYSTEM THAT PROVIDES
BENEFITS FOR POLICE OFFICERS AND
FIREFIGHTERS.
PROP 124 MAKES ONE CHANGE AND
ONE CHANGE ONLY TO THAT -- TO
THE PENSION SYSTEM.
AND SIT A CHANGE THAT HAS TO BE
APPROVED BY THE VOTERS.
AND THAT IS TO EXCHANGE THE
PORTION OF THE BENEFIT THAT
CURRENTLY PROVIDES INCREASES TO
RETIREES IN RETIREMENT AND
CURRENTLY THAT BENEFIT IS TIED
TO INVESTMENT EARNINGS.
THE PROPOSAL, IF APPROVED BY THE
VOTERS, WOULD ALLOW THE EXCHANGE
OF THAT BENEFIT FOR ANOTHER ONE
THAT WOULD BE TIED TO INFLATION.
AND IT'S VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE
OF THE OTHER CHANGES THAT ARE
BEING MADE BY THE LEGISLATURE.
IT ALL FITS TOGETHER.
AND IT GIVES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM TO BE
BEGIN TO START ON A PATHWAY TO
RECOVERY.
BECAUSE THE RETIREMENT SYSTEM AS
IT STANDS RIGHTS NOW HAS ABOUT
HALF OF THE ASSETS THAT IT NEEDS
TO BE ABLE TO PAY FOR THOSE
BENEFITS THAT HAVE BEEN PROMISED
TO POLICE OFFICERS AND
FIREFIGHTERS IN THE FUTURE.
AND WE BELIEVE PROP 124 IS THE
BEST WAY TO GO ABOUT MAKING THAT
CHANGE TO ALLOW THE RETIREMENT
SYSTEM TO START TO RECOVER.
>> SO OFTEN WHEN IT COMES TO
THESE BALLOT QUESTIONS WE SEE A
LOT OF BACK AND FORTH, STRONG
SUPPORTERS, STRONG OPPOSITION.
IT SEEMS LIKE NOBODY WHO DOESN'T
LIKE THIS.
WHY IS THAT?
>> WELL, CHRIS, I BELIEVE IT'S
BECAUSE WE'VE SPENT ALMOST TWO
YEARS WORKING ON THIS PROPOSAL.
AND LET ME TELL YOU HOW IT
STARTED, IS THAT THE
FIREFIGHTERS STARTED LOOKING AT
THIS ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO AND
THAT RESULTED IN THE PRESIDENT
OF THE STATE SENATE, ANDY BIGGS,
TO APPOINT A LEGISLATIVE WORKING
GROUP TO EXAMINE THE RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, ITS BENEFITS, ITS
FUNDING LEVELS.
AND HE CHOSE SENATOR DEBBIE
LESKO TO CHAIR THAT COMMITTEE.
WHAT SENATOR LESKO DID OVER THE
PAST YEAR AND A HALF IS TO
INVITE EVERY STAKEHOLDER THAT WE
COULD THINK OF TO COME IN AND
SIT DOWN AT ONE TABLE TO DISCUSS
PROPOSALS, TO DISCUSS HOW IT
COULD BE DONE AND TO GET A
PROPOSAL TOGETHER THAT COULD BE
PRESENTED NOT ONLY TO THE
RETIREES BUT TO THE VOTERS TO
MAKE THIS CHANGE.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT
THE STAKEHOLDERS THAT CAME
TOGETHER TO MEET ON THIS
REPRESENTED EVERY AREA OF THE
COMMUNITY THAT'S BEEN IMPACTED
BY THOSE RISING COSTS IN
PENSIONS.
>> SOME PEOPLE MAY LOOK AT PROP
124 AND THE LEGISLATION THAT WAS
PASSED ALONG WITH IT THAT MAKES
MORE CHANGES TO THE SYSTEM AND
SAY, WAIT A SECOND, WHY WOULD
POLICE OFFICERS AND FIREFIGHTERS
SUPPORT THIS.
IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE GOING TO
HAVE TO PUT SOME MORE MONEY IN,
THE COLA, THE COST OF LIVING
CHANGE, THE PROP 124 DEALS WITH
MIGHT NOT BE SO BENEFICIAL.
BUT IN THE LONG TERM THIS IS A
GOOD DEAL FOR POLICE,
FIREFIGHTERS, PUBLIC SAFETY
WORKERS.
>> THAT' TRUE.
AND YOU ALSO HAVE TO REALIZE
THAT NOBODY HAS MORE INVESTED IN
OUR RETIREMENT SYSTEM THAN THE
EMPLOYEES THAT PARTICIPATE IN
IT.
THE OTHER PART OF IT IS THAT THE
DEFICIENCIES THAT HAVE CAUSED
RISING COSTS TO CROWD OUT OTHER
SERVICES, HIRING, THE DEPLOYMENT
OF PUBLIC SAFETY RESOURCES, YOU
KNOW, WE LIVE IN THOSE SAME
COMMUNITIES TOO AND THAT'S WHERE
YOUR FAMILIES LIVE AND IT IS
VITALLY IMPORTANT TO US TO
ENGAGE IN THAT DISCUSSION.
WE FELT THAT WE'VE REACHED A
GOOD CONCLUSION TO THIS.
AS YOU SAY, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S A
PRETTY GOOD DEAL OVER A LONG
TERM.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT
THIS IS NOT A TAX INCREASE.
IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS
GOING TO PUT SOMETHING NEW IN
PLACE.
WHAT IT DOES IS IT ACTUALLY
RESTRUCTURES AND ALLOWS THE
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, OVER THE NEXT
THREE DECADES, TO SAVE TAXPAYERS
$1.5 BILLION.
AND THAT'S QUITE AN ACHIEVEMENT
FOR WORKING GROUP TO COME TO
THAT KIND OF A SOLUTION.
>> ALL RIGHT.
JIM, YOU ALL HAVE A TV AD
RUNNING, NOT MUCH OPPOSITION.
IT SOUNDS LIKE WE NEVER CAN
PREDICT THE VOTE OR VOTERS.
WE'VE LEARNED THAT.
BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS SHOULD
BE A PRETTY EASY CHANGE.
ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TO SEE
OTHER PENSION CHANGES AS WE GO
ALONG?
>> WELL, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS
HAS BEEN COMPREHENSIVE.
THE ONE PIECE OF THIS PENSION
REFORM PROPOSAL THAT HAS TO BE
APPROVED BY THE VOTERS IS IN
PROP 124.
BUT IT'S ACTUALLY BEEN A VERY
COMPREHENSIVE LOOK AT THE
PENSIONS.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'M
HOPEFUL IS THAT WE HOPE TO HAVE
THIS PENSION REFORM WORKING
GROUP THAT HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL
TO CONTINUE TO STAY TOGETHER AND
LOOK AT THINGS THAT CAN BE
BENEFICIAL FOR ALL OF US.
SO YOU KNOW, IN THE SHORT TERM I
DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE'S GOING
TO BE ANOTHER REFORM EFFORT THAT
IS GOING TO PROP UP.
I THINK THIS ONE HAS BEEN VERY
COMPREHENSIVE.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THANKS SO MUCH FOR SITTING DOWN
WITH US AND EDUCATING OUR
VIEWERS ABOUT PROP 124.
>> WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY.
>>> NO GROUP IS ACTIVELY
OPPOSING PROP 124.
AS UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
ECONOMIST JUNE PING EXCHAINS, IT
WILL HAVE AN ECONOMIC IMPACT
WHETHER OR NOT IT PASSES.
>> WHEN IT COMES TO PROPOSITION
124, THERE'S SOME ECONOMIC
ISSUES HERE.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY THIS IS
NEEDED?
WE HAVE AN UNDERFUNDING ISSUE.
>> YES.
TO DEFEND PROP 124, YOU HAVE TO
THINK ABOUT IN TERMS OF BOTH A
NARROW CONTEXT OF THE PROP
ITSELF.
BUT ALSO THE BROADER CONTEXT OF
THE FUNDING ISSUE FOR THE PUBLIC
SAFETY PERSONNEL RETIREMENT
SYSTEM.
SO WITH A NARROW COMPLEX OF THE
PROPOSITION ITSELF, IT IS ASKING
VOTER TO AMEND A STATE
CONSTITUTION SO THAT THE STATE
LEGISLATURE CAN CHANGE THE POST
RETIREMENT PENSION BENEFIT
INCREASE FORMULA FOR PUBLIC
SAFETY EMPLOYEES AND RETIREES.
FOR THE CURRENT FORMULA IT'S
UNSUSTAINABLE.
IT'S CALLED PERMANENT BENEFIT
INCREASE.
AND IT IS FUNDED WITH AN EFFORT
OF 9%.
SO IT'S UNSUSTAINABLE BECAUSE
THIS EXCESS RETURN IS ONLY A
ONE-TIME THING AND IT IS UP TO
FUND A PERMANENT BENEFIT
INCREASE.
SO YOU'RE ALMOST ASKING
YOURSELF, LIKE, CAN YOU USE THE
ONE-TIME TAX REBATE TO
PERMANENTLY INCREASE YOUR
SPENDING COSTS.
SO YOU CANNOT DO THAT.
AND THEN SECONDLY, IT IS ALSO
NOT FAIR TO THE RETIREES
THEMSELVES BECAUSE THERE'S
UNCERTAINTY IN THIS.
SOME YEARS YOU WILL HAVE AVERAGE
RETURNS BUT OTHER YEARS LOWER
THAN AVERAGE RETURNS.
THEY DON'T KNOW IN WHICH YEAR
THEY MAY BE ABLE TO GET A
BENEFIT INCREASE.
>> WHEN IT COMES TO RETIREMENT
SYSTEMS, PUBLIC RETIREMENT
SYSTEMS, ARIZONA IS NOT ALONE IN
THIS, THOUGH THE PUBLIC SAFETY
SECTOR IS WORSE THAN THE OTHERS.
BUT WE'RE NOT ALONE IN THIS.
>> YEAH.
THAT'S GETTING BACK TO THE
BROADER CONTEXT OF THE FINANCIAL
CONDITION OF THE PRS.
CURRENTLY IT IS FUNDED AT ONLY
50% LEVEL, WHICH MEANS THEY ONLY
HAVE 50% OF MONEY THEY NEED TO
FUND ALL OF THE BENEFITS.
AND THAT COMES OUT TO ABOUT $6
BILLION UNFUNDED LIABILITY.
OF COURSE AS I SAID, IT'S NOT
JUST ARIZONA PROBLEM.
IT'S REALLY A NATIONWIDE.
ON AVERAGE, NATIONWIDE STATE
RETIREMENT PLANS FUNDING ABOUT
70%.
SO CERTAINLY 50% IS MUCH LOWER
THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE.
AND AS A COMPARISON, THE BIGGER
ARIZONA RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
ARIZONA STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM
IS FUNDED AT ABOUT 76% WHICH IS
A MUCH BETTER CONDITION.
>> FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T FOLLOW
THIS DAY TO DAY AND DON'T
UNDERSTAND NECESSARILY PENSIONS,
WHEN YOU SAY IT'S FUNDED AT 50%
OR THE LARGER SYSTEM IS FUNDED
AT ABOUT 76%, THAT MEANS IF
EVERYBODY IN THE SYSTEM RETIRED
TODAY THEY HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO
PAY FOR 50% OR HALF OF THE --
>> YES.
OF COURSE 50% IS AS OF TODAY.
AND OBVIOUSLY THEY HAVE MONEY TO
PAY FOR THESE BENEFITS FOR MANY,
MANY, MANY YEARS TO COME.
IT'S ONLY THAT IN THE LONG TERM
IS THAT WHEN PEOPLE RETIRE AND
OVER TIME THEY WILL RUN OUT OF
MONEY TO PAY FOR THEIR BENEFITS
OVER TIME.
>> AND OF COURSE THOSE ARE
BENEFITS THAT HAVE TO BE PAID.
YOU CAN'T TELL PEOPLE, SORRY, WE
DON'T HAVE THE MONEY.
IT HAS TO BE PAID.
>> THAT'S THE POINT OF PROP 124.
BECAUSE STATE CONSTITUTION
GUARANTEES BENEFITS PROMISED TO
THE EMPLOYEES AND RETIREES.
SO YOU CANNOT DAMAGE OR IMPAIR
THESE BENEFITS.
SO IN ORDER FOR THE STATE TO GO
BACK AND CHANGE THE BENEFITS,
THEY HAVE TO ASK THE VOTERS TO
AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO ALLOW
THE STATE TO DO THAT.
>> YOU'VE LOOKED AT THIS.
DOES IT FIX THE PROBLEM
COMPLETELY?
WE'RE FINISHED, DON'T HAVE TO
TOUCH IT AGAIN, OR IS THIS THE
BEGINNING OF A FIX?
>> YOU'RE ACTUALLY RIGHT.
THIS IS REALLY ONLY THE FIRST
STEP.
AND THIS IS A LONG TERM.
AND IT DOESN'T MEAN THE PROBLEM
WILL BE SOLVED.
AND THEY SAY THAT.
THE PROP 124 IS ONLY PART OF A
BROADER PACKAGE OF REFORMING
RETIREMENT PACKAGES.
AND RESEARCH SHOWS THIS WILL
SAVE THEM ABOUT $1.5 BILLION
OVER A 30-YEAR PERIOD.
BUT NOW THEIR FUNDING SHORTAGE
IS $6 BILLION.
THAT'S WHY THIS IS ONLY THE
FIRST STEP.
>> AND OF COURSE THIS ISN'T JUST
STATE GOVERNMENT IT HITS.
I ALSO HITS COUNTIES AND CITIES
AND TOWNS THAT HAVE POLICE
OFFICERS AND FIREFIGHTERS
BECAUSE THEY PAY INTO IT ALSO.
>> EXACTLY.
THE REASON WE EVEN HAVE THIS
BALLOT AND PROP 124 IS BECAUSE
EVERYBODY, EVERY STAKEHOLDER IS
VERY MUCH ON BOARD WITH THIS
ISSUE.
AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ARE
EMPLOYEES.
THEY'RE PAYING FOR ALL OF THE
PENSION BENEFIT.
NOT JUST STATE GOVERNMENT.
SO THEY WANT TO SEE THIS BE
RESOLVED OVER A LONG PERIOD OF
TIME.
>> BECAUSE IT HITS THEIR BUDGET
ALSO JUST LIKE IT HITS THE STATE
BUDGET?
>> YES, ALL OF THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING CITY OF
TUCSON, THEY'RE ALL PAYING FOR
INCREASING PENSION CONTRIBUTION
TO THE SYSTEM.
>>> AND THAT'S OUR PROGRAM.
LORRAINE IS BACK NEXT WEEK.
I'M CHRISTOPHER CONOVER.
FOR THE ENTIRE "ARIZONA WEEK"
TEAM, THANKS FOR WATCHING.