Typically in a local election year, we report on the issues and ballot propositions for weeks, sometimes months or years, covering both sides as well as public forums and debate.
Usually these news stories stand alone prior to the public vote.
If we decide a certain course of action is in the best benefit of the community, we may draft an editorial espousing that stance and publish it shortly before the election in order to nudge or sway those voters who may still be on the fence long after the opponent and proponent voters on both sides have made up their minds and cast a ballot.
That was our intention with school district consolidation between the Mingus Union High School District and the Cottonwood-Oak Creek School District last week.
We urged a “yes” vote on the facts laid out by both sides. However, new evidence has since come to light which increases the urging toward a “yes” vote.
Per Arizona state law regarding campaign finance transparency, both sides recently released their campaign funding for the third quarter.
The “yes” vote group, which has been in the works for more than two years, has considerably more money. This makes sense considering its members have been trying to put the item on the ballot since 2018 and went to court to do so. Their fundraising paid for lawyers and legal counsel.
Many other proponents are long-time Verde Valley residents eager to see consolidation come to pass.
Both sides have also collected small donations from residents to fight or push for consolidation, which is all well and good. We highly encourage political participation, either at the polls, in letters, at forums and debates and, when necessary, with pocketbooks.
We, of course, assume that “local” elections will be, well … “local.” Nothing turns off voters more than discovering outside money is trying to influence a local vote.
On the state and national level, partisanship generally means voters turn a blind eye to these incursions, but on the local level, especially with ballot measures, this sort of outside input is detrimental.
Thus, we were surprised to learn that the anti-consolidation group has just over $8,300, but $5,000 of that came from a Phoenix-area energy company that did $1,100,800 in work for the Mingus Union High School District seven years ago.
Officials with the company assure us there’s nothing untoward in their substantial donation of $5,000, which accounts for nearly 60% of the anti-consolidation group’s budget. Perhaps not. It is 100% legal.
But it does seem highly suspect that a Phoenix energy company would suddenly make a donation toward keeping one school district they did work for separate from another. The company came to Sedona late last year to pitch a new product, but have not apparently done so with Mingus.
Yet.
Good thing they gave that donation so MUHSD Governing Board members will remember the name if the company does come.
Pro-consolidation proponents were also surprised at the donation as they claim they have not spoken with the donor, which also is likely true, but makes the donation even more suspect.
Proponents were not begging for a donation by pitching the owners with the rationale about keeping the district separate to benefit teacher salaries or save curriculum costs or relieve the local tax burden.
Rather, the company, potentially seeing a client district go away and losing out on a possible future business contract, decided to make a donation in its pure future financial interest.
Swaying our vote is thus not based on politics, but profits.
Generally, when some individual makes a campaign donation to a cause, it’s done so for the public good because the donor is a member of the community and believes in the ballot issue.
However, this donation comes from a company with no offices in Cottonwood, no discernible relationship to the residents, nor the students, other than a financial one. The money was not given for residents nor students, but for its bottom line. Again, this is 100% legal, but should cause concern at the polls.
One of the proponents’ arguments is that a merger between the districts will consolidate services. This is apparent now. Two districts can become one and negotiate better contracts. Perhaps a future contract will be with this vendor. Nothing says they’re not a bad company.
So again, we urge voters to vote “yes” on consolidation and put an end to this nonsense.
Christopher Fox Graham
Managing Editor
