Seeking Solutions Can Utah’S Approach to Immigration Offer a Way Forward for Other States?

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Seeking Solutions Can Utah’S Approach to Immigration Offer a Way Forward for Other States? A SPECIAL REPORT: IMMIGRATION AND THE STATES Seeking Solutions Can Utah’s approach to immigration offer a way forward for other states? “We’re going to crack BY ALAN GREENBLATT gal immigrants in the state contributed to an atmosphere of violence and they had lost faith down on the illegals who are tah legislators are crafting a compro- in the federal government to take meaningful here in the country, but at the mise on immigration law that could action. end up being a model for across-the- It now seemed to Herbert that if he asked same time there’s a need for aisle cooperation for other states. the Utah Legislature to reopen its immigra- migrant workers.” ULast year, Republican Governor Gary tion bill, lawmakers might emulate Arizona’s Herbert signed a bill requiring employers to tough new approach instead of softening it. —UTAH REPRESENTATIVE STEPHEN check the citizenship status of their new hires “The mood had changed,” says Utah Rep- SANDSTROM through the federal E-Verify system. He said resentative Stephen Sandstrom. he would sign it only if legislators agreed to Even though the number of illegal immi- Although much of the law was struck down come back later in special session to soften grants in the country had dropped from more by a federal judge a day before it took effect, the law, making the verification requirement than 12 million in 2006 to about 11.2 mil- Sandstrom still thinks Utah should follow voluntary for the first year. lion in 2010, according to the Pew Hispanic Arizona’s lead. Before the governor could call legislators Center, many people sup- Nonetheless, Sandstrom has been working back to Salt Lake City, however, Arizona had port tougher laws. National with legislators from both parties for months passed its controversial immigration law. polls following passage of on a version of the bill that would not only Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070 required local the Arizona law showed a impose tougher penalties on illegal immi- police to check the immigration status of majority of Americans sup- grants and their employers, but also would individuals they had reason to suspect were ported the legislation, and allow new immigrants into the country to in the country illegally. Many lawmakers even larger majorities sup- meet specific workforce needs. Sandstrom there believed the estimated 500,000 ille- ported individual aspects of REPRESENTATIVE insists this hybrid approach is “not a compro- the law, such as making it a STEPHEN mise.” SANDSTROM Alan Greenblatt is a freelance writer in St. Louis, Mo. He is crime to support someone “It’s kind of the carrot and the stick,” he a frequent contributor to State Legislatures. who is an illegal immigrant. UTAH says. “We’re going to crack down on the ille- 12 state LegisLatures MARCH 2011 ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS: WHERE DO THEY COME FROM? THE COST CALCULUS t’s difficult to get a firm sense of just I how much illegal immigrants cost states, cities and counties in areas such as education, health care and law enforce- ment. Last July, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) put the cost to states and localities at $84.2 billion a year. FAIR is an anti-immigrant group, but studies from other sources also have shown that significant costs are involved. A 2007 Congressional Budget Office report found the cost of services to illegal immigrants fall mostly on states, counties and cities. Other studies of individual states, however, have found a net benefit to Source: Pew Hispanic Center, 2008 states. A 2004 Arizona study estimated total state revenue from immigrant work- ers was about $2.4 billion, with $1.5 bil- “Obviously, an enforcement-only approach is not going to work. lion coming from illegal immigrants and That is what we’ve been doing for the last several decades, $860 million from naturalized citizens. The cost of education, health care and and it’s been a failure.” law enforcement was $1.4 billion, mean- —ARIZONA SENATOR KYRSTEN SINEMA ing the state came out ahead by $940 mil- lion. A Texas study estimated total state gals who are here in the country, but at the recently, the federal Immigration and Nation- revenues from unauthorized immigrants same time there’s a need for migrant work- ality Act of 1965 eliminated country-specific to be $1.58 billion in FY 2005, while ers.” quotas and nearly doubled the number of the total cost of providing state services If the bill passes, it may provide a model legal immigrants who could enter the country. was $1.16 billion, leaving a net benefit of for other states that are still looking for the The 1986 Immigration Reform and Con- $424 million in FY 2005. Counties and best ways to address illegal immigration. trol Act granted legal status to 2.7 million cities, however, faced an additional $1.44 illegal immigrants and tried to curb future billion in health care and law enforce- MIXED HISTORY illegal immigration by establishing penalties ment costs that were not reimbursed by Congress has been unable for years to for employers who knowingly hired them. the state. come up with any sort of approach that can Another law in 1996 increased the number of The Congressional Budget Office satisfy those concerned with the public safety border control agents and made illegal immi- report found “over the long term, tax and costs associated with illegal immigra- grants ineligible for Social Security benefits. revenues of all types generated by immi- tion, while also satisfying those who believe The law even made legal immigrants entering grants—both legal and unauthorized— removing more than 11 million illegal immi- the country after 1996 were made ineligible exceed the cost of the services they use. grants from the country would cause eco- for programs such as food stamps and Medic- However, many estimates also show that nomic chaos and human rights abuses. A aid for five years. the cost of providing public services to Congress now under divided control will unauthorized immigrants at the state and likely make little progress at all. STATES TAKE DIFFERENT PATHS local levels exceeds what that population “Continuing political stalemate is the most For several years now, states have adopted pays in state and local taxes.” likely scenario. Congress is not going to act,” different approaches to the issue. Some have The report notes that illegal immi- says Stephen Camarota, director of research tried to help illegal immigrants become more grants are barred from receiving many at the Center for Immigration Studies, which productive by offering in-state tuition rates services provided by the federal govern- favors a tough approach on immigration. to their children or setting up state offices ment through Social Security or Medic- There have been laws restricting immi- designed to promote a smoother integration aid, for example. grants since the late 19th century. More into society. MARCH 2011 state LegisLatures 13 process, it’s clear legislators in a number of “The fundamental premise of any discussion on immigration states are interested in copying many of its policy rests with the failed federal policies—the abject, dismal, provisions. The main portions of that law pathetic failure of the federal government to do what it is have not survived court scrutiny as yet, how- ever. Another idea that some legislators are constitutionally mandated to do.” considering—challenging the citizenship of all native-born children under the 14th —UTAH SENATOR CURTIS BRAMBLE Amendment—is guaranteed to provoke even Arizona Senator Kyrsten not all state-level legislation is restrictive and more battles in the courts. Sinema says that although anti-immigrant.” Although states may be pushing the limit legislators have to give State lawmakers have passed numerous bills by crafting policy in an area that is primar- police and prosecutors the addressing worker shortages in different sec- ily a federal responsibility, that doesn’t mean tools they need to combat tors, and helping legal immigrants with hous- they won’t keep trying. Many state lawmak- law-breaking, it’s incum- ing, employment, education and other things. ers of both parties believe the federal govern- bent upon both Congress Most attention, however, continues to focus ment isn’t living up to its responsibility to SENATOR and the states to figure out on laws that make life more difficult for ille- address the issue, despite recent efforts to step KYRSTEN SINEMA a more “comprehensive” gal immigrants and those who hire or house up border enforcement. ARIZONA strategy for coping with the them. It’s been a big shift from the trends that “The fundamental prem- millions of illegal immi- were prevalent a decade ago. ise of any discussion on grants already in the country than just deport- “It does seem that the people who want immigration policy rests ing them. “Obviously, an enforcement-only enforcement are somewhat better organized with the failed federal poli- approach is not going to work,” Sinema says. at the state level,” Camorata says. cies—the abject, dismal, “That is what we’ve been doing for the last But after having enacted hundreds of laws pathetic failure of the fed- several decades and it’s been a failure.” regarding illegal immigration over the last eral government to do what SENATOR Suman Raghunathan, an immigration pol- few years, it’s not clear how much stricter it is constitutionally man- CURTIS BRAMBLE icy specialist for the Progressive States Net- states can get. If provisions of the Arizona dated to do,” said Repub- UTAH work, says that “contrary to popular belief, law are restored through the federal appeals lican Utah Senator Curtis Bramble in a debate on immigration policy just before the Legislature convened.
Recommended publications
  • Authoritarianism, Social Dominance Orientation, and Support for Strict Immigration Policies at Home and Abroad
    bs_bs_banner Political Psychology, Vol. xx, No. xx, 2013 doi: 10.1111/pops.12078 Not in My Backyard! Authoritarianism, Social Dominance Orientation, and Support for Strict Immigration Policies at Home and Abroad Maureen A. Craig Northwestern University Jennifer A. Richeson Northwestern University Many controversial immigration policies have recently emerged across the United States and abroad. We explore the role of national context in shaping support for such policies. Specifically, we examine whether the extent to which ideological attitudes—Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orienta- tion (SDO)—predict policy support is moderated by the national context of the policy. Across three studies, United States citizens read about a controversial immigration policy affecting either their own country (United States) or a foreign country (Israel or Singapore) and indicated their support for the policy. Results reveal that SDO predicts policy support, regardless of its national context; this effect is mediated by per- ceived competition. Conversely, RWA predicts policy support only if the policy affects domestic immigration; this effect is mediated by perceptions of cultural threat. Consistent with prior research, the present findings highlight the role of perceived cultural threat to one’s ingroup and perceived competition in shaping attitudes toward immigration and shed light on some of the motivations underlying the recent rise in popularity of strict immigration policies. KEY WORDS: Immigration attitudes, Ethnic exclusion, Social dominance orientation, Right-wing authoritarianism, Perceived threat The greatest threat to our neighborhoods is the illegal alien invasion. Russell Pearce (Billeaud, 2010) As the foreign-born population of the United States reaches nearly 37 million people (U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Utah State of Children's Coverage Report
    2019 UTAH STATE OF CHILDREN’S COVERAGE REPORT 100% Kids: Giving All Kids the Opportunity to Thrive Table of Contents Executive Summary......................................................................... 1 Introduction ...................................................................................... 6 Why Health Insurance Matters ........................................................ 3 Health Insurance Disparities............................................................ 5 Why Are Children Uninsured? ......................................................... 6 Immigrant Children and Health Insurance ...................................... 8 Health Insurance Barriers Faced by Immigrant Families............... 12 100% Kids Coverage Campaign and Recommendations ............. 13 Conclusion ..................................................................................... 16 100% Kids Coalition Endorsements .............................................. 17 Appendix 1: In Their Own Words: Growing Up Without Health Insurance ........ 18 Appendix 2: In Their Own Words: How Insurance Affects Family Well-Being ... 18 Endnotes ....................................................................................... 20 Acknowledgements ....................................................................... 21 Note: The testimonies and stories throughout the report come directly from immigrant families who have benefited from CHIP and Medicaid, or could benefit if coverage was extended to all children regardless of immigration status. All
    [Show full text]
  • Superior Court of Arizona Maricopa County Cv 2020
    Clerk of the Superior Court *** Filed *** SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY CV 2020-016840 02/25/2021 CLERK OF THE COURT HONORABLE TIMOTHY J. THOMASON N. Johnson Deputy MARICOPA COUNTY, et al. STEPHEN W TULLY v. KAREN FANN, et al. THOMAS J. BASILE JAMES E BARTON II JOHN A DORAN THOMAS PURCELL LIDDY JOSEPH EUGENE LA RUE JOSEPH J BRANCO EMILY M CRAIGER KORY A LANGHOFER JACQUELINE MENDEZ SOTO GREGREY G JERNIGAN COURT ADMIN-CIVIL-ARB DESK DOCKET-CIVIL-CCC JUDGE THOMASON MINUTE ENTRY East Court Building – Courtroom 713 9:03 a.m. This is the time set for Oral Argument on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, filed February 22, 2021, President Fann and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Petersen’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, filed February 22, 2021, and Democratic Senators’ Motion for Summary Judgment, filed February 22, 2021 via Court Connect. All appearances are virtual and are as follows: Docket Code 901 Form V000A Page 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA MARICOPA COUNTY CV 2020-016840 02/25/2021 Counsel, Stephen W. Tully, John A. Doran, Thomas P. Liddy, Joseph J. Branco, Joseph E. LaRue, and Emily Craiger are present on behalf of Plaintiffs/Defendants- in-Counterclaim Maricopa County; Clint Hickman, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors; and Jack Sellers, Steve Chucri, Bill Gates, and Steve Gallardo, in their official capacities as Members of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, who are not present. Counsel, Thomas Basile and Kory Langhofer are present on behalf of Defendants/Plaintiffs-in-Counterclaim Arizona Senate President Karen Fann, who is present, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Eddie Farnsworth, who is not present.
    [Show full text]
  • 2006 Voters Guide
    Election Season 2006 The Catholic Sun ◆ Page 1 2006 Voters Guide Arizona Catholic Conference Diocese of Gallup ◆ Diocese of Phoenix ◆ Diocese of Tucson he Arizona Catholic Conference (ACC) is the public policy arm Tof the Diocese of Phoenix, the Diocese of Tucson, and the Diocese of Gallup. We have produced this 2006 ACC Voters Guide as an important educational tool to provide unbiased information on the upcoming elections. Pursuant to Internal Revenue Service requirements legislative district. Each legislative district includes for churches and nonprofit organizations, this doc- one State Senator and two State Representatives. ument does not endorse candidates or indicate our To find the legislative district you live in, please visit support or opposition to the questions. The Voters www.azcatholicconference.org. Guide, however, is an excellent source of informa- While the 2006 Voters Guide will reach hundreds tion on the candidates’ positions on current issues. of thousands of people, you are encouraged to Included in this guide are races covering the U.S. Senate, U.S. Congress, Arizona Governor, reproduce this material and distribute it in your Secretary of State, Attorney General, Treasurer, churches. Please take time to review this guide and Corporation Commission, State Senate and State remember to visit www.azcatholicconference.org to House. It is important to remember that members sign up for legislative alerts and to keep up on the of the State Senate and State House are elected by latest information. This 2006 Voters Guide was produced by the Arizona Catholic Conference and The Catholic Sun, newspaper of the Diocese of Phoenix. www.azcatholicconference.org Page 2 ◆ The Catholic Sun votersguide Election Season 2006 n June, candidates running I for office were presented with a series of 12 statements and Arizona Catholic Conference 2006 Voters Guide asked to identify whether or not they Supported or Opposed them.
    [Show full text]
  • Sinema, Kyrsten (B
    Sinema, Kyrsten (b. 1976) by Linda Rapp Kyrsten Sinema. Encyclopedia Copyright © 2015, glbtq, Inc. Entry Copyright © 2013 glbtq, Inc. Reprinted from http://www.glbtq.com After serving several terms in the Arizona state legislature, Kyrsten Sinema ran successfully for the United States House of Representatives in 2012, becoming the first openly bisexual person elected to that body. Kyrsten Sinema is a progressive legislator who also has a reputation for reaching across the aisle and engaging in dialogue with people of differing views in order to see that the needs of her constituents are met. After serving several terms in the Arizona state legislature, she ran successfully for the United States House of Representatives in 2012, becoming the first openly bisexual person elected to that body. Sinema is a native Arizonan, born July 12, 1976 in Tucson. Her parents divorced when she was young, however, and, following her mother's remarriage, the new family moved to Florida. There they faced hard times after her stepfather lost his job and the family had to live for a couple of years in an abandoned gas station without electrical service or running water outside the town of Defuniak Springs in the Florida Panhandle. Despite the adverse circumstances, Sinema excelled in high school, graduating as valedictorian of her class at the age of sixteen. She had simultaneously been taking college classes, and so she had enough transfer credits to be able to complete her bachelor's degree in social work at Brigham Young University in just two years. The choice to go to Brigham Young was likely influenced by the fact that, as Sinema told Jessica Coomes of the Arizona Republic, her parents were "very, very, very, very strict Mormons." Sinema would later leave the church, but, she stated to Coomes, "Growing up in that environment helped me learn about personal strength.
    [Show full text]
  • 2011 Legislative Summary
    th 50 Legislature, First Regular Session Arizona Department of Transportation Legislative Summaries 2011 Contents Members of the 50th Legislature……………………………………………….3 SORTED BY Bill Number Transportation-Related Legislative Summaries - Passed…..…………….……….7 Transportation-Related Legislation - Vetoed………………………………………. 21 *Information for Legislative Summaries was gathered from Legislation On Line Arizona (LOLA), Legislative Research Staff Bill Summaries, and bill language. **Official copies of all 2011 Chapter Laws and complete files of action for public review (for both the Regular and Special Sessions) are available on-line at www.azleg.gov - 1 - Government Relations 206 South Seventeenth Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3213 Janice K. Brewer Kevin Biesty Governor Government June 7, 2011 Relations Director John S. Halikowski Director John Halikowski, Director Arizona Department of Transportation 206 South 17th Avenue, MD 100A Phoenix, AZ 85007 Dear Director Halikowski: Attached is the final summary of transportation-related legislation considered during the First Regular Session of the 50th Legislature. The First Regular Legislative Session ended on April 20, 2011 lasting 100 days. During the session, 1,496 bills, resolutions, and memorials were introduced, of which 393 were enacted and 29 were vetoed. This document and Final Summaries from previous years can be found online at http://www.azdot.gov/CCPartnerships/Government_Relations/reports.asp. Full legislative chapter text, fact sheets and other legislative information and links can be
    [Show full text]
  • Tools for Leaders: Hope and Hospitality 6OJUFE.FUIPEJTU8PNFOT)PQFBOE)PTQJUBMJUZ
    Tools for Leaders: Hope and Hospitality 6OJUFE.FUIPEJTU8PNFOt)PQFBOE)PTQJUBMJUZ © 2012 United Methodist Women Immigrant and Civil Rights Initiative United Methodist Women 777 United Nations Plaza, 11th floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: 212-682-3633 www.unitedmethodistwomen.org immigration.umwonline.net www.facebook.com/groups/UMWimmigration This manual and material from this manual may be reproduced without adaptation for non- commercial purposes provided the following notice appears with the excerpted material: From Hope and Hospitality: An Immigration Resource Guide © 2012 United Methodist Women. All rights reserved. Used by permission. Articles from response magazine should also include the article title, author name, and year and date of issue along with © response magazine. This resource is for United Methodist Women at the local, district, conference and national levels. Materials are also available online at unitedmethodistwomen.org/act/immigration, or contact your conference Immigration Task Force. For further information contact the United Methodist Women Immigrant and Civil Rights initiative at the Church Center for the United Na- tions, 777 United Nations Plaza, 11th floor, New York, NY 10017, telephone 212-682-3633, e-mail [email protected]. All biblical quotations, unless otherwise noted, are from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of the Bible, copyright © 1989, by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Scripture taken from The Message copyright © 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2001, 2002. Used by permission of NavPress Publishing Group. Quotes from the The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church—2008 copyright © 2008 by The United Methodist Publishing House.
    [Show full text]
  • Request for Evidence
    KORY LANGHOFER Managing Attorney November 11, 2019 Maricopa County Board of Supervisors c/o Allister Adele, Maricopa County Attorney 301 West Jefferson Street Phoenix, Arizona 85003 [email protected] Re: Suspension of Maricopa County Assessor Paul Petersen – Request for Documents and Testimony Ms. Adel: We write by way of follow-up to our letter of November 7, 2019 in which we requested on behalf of Maricopa County Assessor Paul Petersen the evidentiary hearing afforded by Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-664(C) in connection with the Board of Supervisors’ putative suspension of Mr. Petersen from his constitutionally elected office. As you know, Section 11-664(C) entitles Mr. Petersen to present evidence and witnesses on his behalf. The effective vindication of this right, however, must necessarily entail means to compel the disclosure of documents and the production of witnesses, particularly when such sources of evidence are under the control of the Board and/or the County Attorney’s Office. To this end, we have set forth below documents and witnesses that must be made available to Mr. Petersen pursuant to the following provisions: 1. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-664(C), which guarantees Mr. Petersen’s right to present evidence in his defense at the upcoming hearing; 2. the Arizona Public Records Act, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 39-121, et seq., which guarantees the public’s right to review records concerning the (mis)conduct of public officers; and 3. Arizona Rule of Professional Conduct 1.4 which, as discussed below, entitles Mr. Petersen to access the records of the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office.
    [Show full text]
  • The Expected Impact of State Immigration Legislation on Labor
    The Expected Impact of State Julie L. Hotchkiss Immigration Legislation on Myriam Quispe-Agnoli Labor Market Outcomes Abstract In response to the dramatic rise in the number of unauthorized immigrants to the United States, every state has passed some form of immigration legislation. These laws appear to be predicated on a belief that unauthorized immigrants impose greater costs than benefits to state and local communities, including the labor market. The purpose of this paper is to examine some evidence on what workers should expect if the im- migration legislation is successful in eliminating undocumented workers from states’ labor markets. C 2012 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management. INTRODUCTION “The State of Alabama [Oklahoma] finds that illegal immigration is causing economic hardshipandlawlessnessinthisstate...” Alabama HB 56 (http://www.ncsl.org/documents/statefed/AlabamaH56.pdf) [Oklahoma HB 1804 (http://ssl.csg.org/dockets/29cycle/29A/2009adocketbills/ 1929A04ok.pdf)] “The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make attrition through en- forcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona. The provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.” Arizona SB 1070 (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf) “Illegal immigration matters.” Indiana SB 590 (http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2011/PDF/IN/IN0590.1.pdf) According the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), state legislative interest in immigration issues spiked in 2005, when 300 immigration bills were introduced into state legislatures; 39 of them survived to become law that year.1 Activity nearly doubled in 2006, then exploded in 2007 with 1,562 bills introduced and 240 becoming law.
    [Show full text]
  • DISCUSSION GUIDE 2Nd EDITION
    DISCUSSION GUIDE 2nd EDITION The State of Arizona PBS.ORG/INDEPENDENTLENS/STATE-OF-ARIZONA Table of Contents 1 Using this Guide 2 From the Filmmakers 3 The Film 5 Background Information 9 Some Important Terms 10 Topics and Issues Relevant to The State of Arizona Thinking More Deeply Film Chapters The following chapters are included in the 11 Suggestions for Action PBS Home Video version to help you find the relevant sections in the film. Resources Chapter 1 Introduction Chapter 2 Does This Look Safe to You? 13 Credits Chapter 3 Paradise Syndrome: What is SB1070? Chapter 4 They Will Self-Deport Chapter 5 Mojado Chapter 6 Pay More for a Stupid Tomato Chapter 7 In Court and On the Streets Chapter 8 Thirty Other States Chapter 9 To Supreme Court & Beyond Chapter 10 Credits DISCUSSION GUIDE // THE STATE OF ARIZONA // 2nd EDITION Using this Guide Community Cinema is a rare public forum: a space for people to gather who are connected by a love of stories, and a belief in their power to change the world. This discussion guide is designed as a tool to facilitate dialogue, and deepen understanding of the complex issues in the film The State of Arizona. It is also an invitation to not only sit back and enjoy the show — but to step up and take action. This guide is not meant to be a comprehensive primer on a given topic. Rather, it provides important context, and raises thought provoking questions to encourage viewers to think more deeply. We provide suggestions for areas to explore in panel discussions, in the classroom, in communities, and online.
    [Show full text]
  • FY 2016 Citizen Budget Brief
    -Budget Brief - CITIZENS’ BUDGET BRIEF 2016 INTRODUCTION Welcome! Welcome to the third annual Citizens’ Budget Brief! This document is one of the ways to continue the conversation on the Maricopa County budget and how to best spend our tax dollars in fiscal year (FY) 2016. The word “OUR” indicates the collective responsibility and opportunity we all have in improving our community, Maricopa County. We believe that increased transparency fosters informed and engaged citizens. This budget brief provides an overview of the organization of the County, the budget process and the revenues and expenditures for FY 2016. Thank you for engaging in this partnership of shared governance! 2016 Budget For the FY 2016 Budget, Chairman Chucri and his fellow supervisors placed an emphasis on addressing public safety concerns and focusing on mandated services, while maximizing operational efficiency and allocating resources to continue to deliver “Best in Class” service. FY 2016 Budget Annual Budget Process The annual budget provides a roadmap for how the County will address policy, financial and operational decisions in delivering services to citizens. The budget serves as an internal and external communications device outlining organizational priorities and the resources allocated to deliver County services. Page|2 CITIZENS’ BUDGET BRIEF 2016 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE Board of Supervisors Maricopa County is a subdivision of the Arizona State government. The Board of Supervisors is the governing body for the County. Each member represents one of the five districts, which are divided geographically and by population to include a mix of urban and rural constituencies. Supervisors are elected to four- year terms and are not term-limited.
    [Show full text]
  • Notice of a Regular Meeting of the League of Arizona Cities & Towns Executive Committee
    NOTICE OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE LEAGUE OF ARIZONA CITIES & TOWNS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Friday, November 22, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. League Office Building 1820 West Washington, Phoenix Notice is hereby given to the members of the Executive Committee and to the general public that the Executive Committee will hold a meeting open to the public on November 22, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. Members of the Executive Committee will attend either in person or by telephone conference call. The Executive Committee may vote to recess the meeting and move into Executive Session on any item on this agenda. Upon completion of Executive Session, the Executive Committee may resume the meeting, open to the public, to address the remaining items on the agenda. A copy of the agenda is available at the League office building in Suite 200 or on the League website at www.azleague.org. Agenda All items on this agenda are scheduled for discussion and possible action, unless otherwise noted. 1. Review and Adoption of Minutes 2. TPT Implementation Work Group Report 3. Legislative Policy Discussion • Income Tax Study Committee • HURF Restoration/Transportation Funding • ASRS-PSPRS • Energy Deregulation 4. 2-1-1 Services Proposal 5. Mayors-Business Roundtable Update 6. Nominating Committee Report and Recommendation 7. League Annual Survey Results 8. Report of AZ Cities @ Work Campaign 9. Recap of 2013 Annual Conference; Future Conference Locations 10. 2012-2013 Audit Report 11. Report from NLC and UCM Additional informational materials are included in the agenda packet but are not part of the agenda. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING Friday, November 22, 2013 at 9:30 a.m.
    [Show full text]