Horizon, Host: Ted Simons

March 29, 2005


Host: Michael Grant

Illegal Immigrant Benefits


  • Adult education classes, college scholarships and child care subsidies would all be denied to illegal aliens, under a bill working its way through the legislature.
Guests:
  • Tom Boone - Chair, Budget Appropriations Committee
  • Phil Lopes - House Minority Leader
  • Michael Branham - Director, Department of Juvenile Corrections


View Transcript
>> Michael Grant:
Tonight on "Horizon," adult education classes, college scholarships and child care subsidies would all be denied to illegal aliens, under a bill working its way through the legislature. Federal investigators found several glaring problems at the juvenile corrections last year. A new report looks at what's being done to improve conditions. Also, the condition of the state archive building led lawmakers to approve funding for a new one. We'll look at the need for a new facility, why it's been difficult to get one built. Those issues, next on "Horizon."

>> Announcer:
"Horizon" is made possible by the friends of Channel 8, members who provide financial support to this Arizona PBS station. Thank you.

>> Michael Grant:
Good evening, I'm Michael Grant. Welcome to "Horizon." A video chain that's been advertising no more late fees has agreed to settle a complaint brought by the Attorney General's Office over that new policy. Blockbuster Video agreeing to pay $630,000 to settle the claims brought by Arizona and 46 other states. The attorneys general alleged that Blockbuster's ad campaign was misleading because it failed to tell customers they would be charged the selling price of the video if they failed to return it within 7 days. Blockbuster will provide a full refund or a credit to customers who were charged under the no late fee program. The State senate is soon going to take up a bill that would further limit public benefits for illegal immigrants. House Bill 2030 passed the house last week. In a moment, I'll talk to the bill's sponsor and a lawmaker who voted against the bill, but first a quick look at what it targets.

>>Teacher:
Give me verbs too.

>>Paul Atkinson:
House Bill 2030 seeks to expand the list of government benefits that undocumented or illegal immigrants can benefit from, as approved by the committee of the whole, the bill targets adult education classes, university and community college scholarships and financial aid, utility assistance, and child care assistance. Adult education classes such as this one in central Phoenix offer English to those who want to learn the language or improve their proficiency. House Bill 2030 would prevent illegal immigrants from enrolling in such classes. HB 2030 allows undocumented immigrants to enroll in the state's public community colleges or universities, but have to pay out of state tuition. HB 2030 would also make illegal immigrants ineligible for any kind of state-funded financial aid, fee waivers or scholarships. Finally, House Bill 2030 would clarify that illegal immigrants cannot receive utility assistance or state subsidized childcare. The state would keep track of the number of people who applied for such benefits and were denied because of their immigration status.

>> Michael Grant:
Joining me now is the sponsor of the bill, Tom Boone. He is the chair of the budget appropriations committee. Also here is Phil Lopes, house minority leader, who voted against the bill. Good to see both of you. Mr. Boone, why expand the list of prohibited benefits beyond what the voters acted on in proposition 200?

>> Tom Boone:
Well, I think first of all, this is not meant to be an expansion of proposition 200 in terms of the bill. Maybe I could start with how I came about sponsoring the bill in the first place. There is a lot of folks in my district, as I think there is throughout the state, that quite honestly are frustrated with the whole issue of illegal immigration in this state and other states. And as a state legislator, as you know, there is not too many things we can do about the federal government and the borders and whatnot, but in terms of the state, one of the things I found sitting on the appropriations committee, which is the committee that does the budget for the last two years, there are programs that quite honestly, I and many of my constituents believe that the State shouldn't have to fund for people here illegally.

>> Michael Grant:
Is the goal to deter illegal immigration or simply to make sure that taxpayers don't pay for certain people, illegal aliens, getting certain benefits?

>> Tom Boone:
That's an excellent question. I think that -- I don't think this is going -- I've been asked was this going to change anything in terms of folks coming across the border illegally, and quite honestly, I can't say it would. It certainly isn't going to courage their coming across, of course, but I think it's about what the tax payers are paying in the State of Arizona. It's a funding issue. It's the state not having to pay for these benefits, specifically outlined in the bill, there is four areas, for those that are here illegally.

>> Michael Grant:
If people are here illegally, why should they be entitled to taxpayer assistance in any form?

>> Phil Lopes:
Well, it's -- I think it's a matter of fairness. If a child came here at age 2, grew up here, went to high school here and wants to go to college, why shouldn't we simply allow him or her to do that? Don't we want people residents in this state, who have educations, who have been to college, who can be productive tax payers, but under this proposal, that person would be denied that, and as Representative Boone says, the purpose is to stop immigration, but it will not do that at all. I mean, there is no question about that.

>> Michael Grant:
Sure.

>> Phil Lopes:
As far as the cost is concerned, that's what's really, really curious about this. We don't know what the cost is. You know, for example, the few students who will go to college, who may not be residents, who may not be citizens, how much will that cost? As a society, as a State, we have to ask ourselves, is the incremental cost of that worth having an educated populace? I happen to think it is.

>> Michael Grant:
Constitution says we should provide to our in-state residents a college education as nearly free as possible, I think. Don't you think the founders had in mind people who were lawfully here when they wrote that into the constitution?

>> Phil Lopes: If we were providing a college education to our residents today that was as nearly free as possible, it costs about $15,000 a year for a U of A student to go to the U of A for a year. That's nowhere near free. We are subsidizing university, there is no question about that. But is the marginal cost of a subsidy to the few students that are going that have been in Arizona for -- in many cases, most of their lives, isn't that incremental cost worth it? I think it is.

>> Michael Grant:
Seems to me Mr. Lopes's argument goes not only to college education, but adult education. The point is maybe we are shooting ourselves in the foot not to, for example, provide English lessons to people who are here filling an economic need. Are we being counterproductive with that?

>> Tom Boone:
I don't think so. I think that -- again, it's a matter of folks that are here illegally, and should the State have to pay for those benefits for those folks that are here? And one of the things I'd like to correct is the issue of higher education in terms of admittance, because I think Mr. Lopes mentioned something that actually was a minor drafting error in the bill that has been corrected, is being corrected.

>> Michael Grant:
You have changed that so that they could attend, but they have to pay out of state tuition?

>> Tom Boone:
That's correct. In other words, if you are here illegally, you would not be qualified to receive in-state residence status, which means obviously you pay less tuition and the State would be funding a portion of the education. In addition to that, it would deny all financial aid or grants or tuition waivers of any kind, if in fact the state is paying any portion of those. Again, it's back to a state funding issue.

>> Michael Grant:
If we're going to charge some poor guy from California out of state tuition, shouldn't we charge somebody from Sonora, Mexico out of state tuition?

>> Phil Lopes:
Of course, that's a foreign student. He comes to go to school. What we're talking about are people who live here, and in some cases lived here most of their lives.

>> Michael Grant:
But they don't live here legally. I mean, is there a distinction there?

>> Phil Lopes:
Of course, there is a distinction there, but to draw that distinction and implement that distinction, based on what it would cost us, I think is false economy. I think it's an issue of how do we want to treat the people who live here? And there is no question that they are here illegally, but do we want to deny them the same benefits as -- deny somebody who has lived here for 20 years the same benefits that somebody else who has lived here for 20 years, the only difference is they are not a citizen?

>> Michael Grant:
Is that one way, though, to encourage them to do it the right way? There is a study recently that says that ironically some these kinds of restrictions are encouraging people to apply for United States citizenship sooner than they otherwise would or perhaps forever, then they never would.

>> Phil Lopes:
I think that's fine, but we're talking about adults in that case. In many cases the colleges we're talking about are not -- cannot do that until they reach the age of maturity, but, yeah, I think we should be encouraging people to become citizens. But this is -- to do this, to provide them college education, for example, or adult education, is not pulling people from Mexico. They are not coming here to go to college. They are not coming here to go to -- to take English classes. They are coming here for all different kinds of other reasons, and they help the economy, and we shouldn't -- we should think of the benefit that they provide to the State of Arizona.

>> Tom Boone:
Michael, I want to mention something about cost because Mr. Lopes brought up something that I think is an important part of the bill. One of the things that's frustrated me since I've been with the legislature, and this is beginning of my third year, is that what is the true cost? What is the cost in terms of the State budget as far as what's being paid for benefits of the kind indicated in this bill and others for that matter for folks that are here illegally. One of the provisions of this bill is, in fact, saying that if -- of the ones that apply for these benefits, specifically that are listed in the bill, of those that have applied, who is being denied the actual benefit on the basis of eligibility? The intent of that is to try to get a handle on what the true cost is. When I was first with the legislature two years ago, we introduced a bill to have the auditor general go out and actually try to calculate going into apartment house services

>> Michael Grant:
Creating a database on --

>> Tom Boone:
Exactly, because that's an issue, what is the true cost?

>> Michael Grant:
Does this bill take the next Proposition 200 step though, and require state employees to report that they have, for example, if you show up at a registrar's office and you apply, do they have a reporting obligation?

>> Tom Boone:
No, they do not. In fact, that's a provision that was in proposition 200 as you are aware, but in this particular bill, it's all about eligibility and state funding of those benefits, if you will, for folks here illegally.

>> Michael Grant:
Clarify something for me, you would keep track of the data but anonymously, so as to track the cost?

>> Tom Boone:
Right, yeah, just sheer numbers. It's trying to get a handle on the actual numbers of folks that apply and then in fact would be denied as a result of this eligibility issue.

>> Michael Grant:
See, if you pass this bill, you'd have the answer to some of the questions that you are raising tonight. Have you changed your opinion on it?

>> Phil Lopes:
Well, all we're going to have -- we're going to have the numbers. I don't know if we're going to have the costs. What we will have, though -- it reminds me of somebody who knows the cost of everything in and the value of nothing. The act of gathering all of this data, we have to gather the data on all four of the programs, family literacy, college education, adult literacy, child care, and we're going to have to create a whole other function of government in order to -- not another function of government, but another task that we're giving people to gather this information and report it. Is it worth it? Is it worth it? That's the question.

>> Michael Grant:
Is utility assistance cleaner at all in your mind? I mean, that doesn't involve some of the educational aspects that we have been talking about. Is there a stronger case to be made for saying, now listen, you ought to pay your own utilities, if you are here illegally?

>> Phil Lopes:
There have been 18 bills, Mr. Grant, introduced in the House this year that any reasonable person reading them would say, this is an anti-immigrant bill. So this is just one of a whole series of bills, of bills that I think are sending a message to the people who live here, that's basically, we don't like you being here. We like your -- the sweat of your brow, but we're not going to help you in any way. These are people who pay taxes, who obey the laws, who do our work, and we're going to turn around and say, when you need some assistance with your utilities, we're not going to give it to you? No, we don't want to do that.

>> Michael Grant:
Are you anti-immigrant with this bill?

>> Tom Boone:
No, I'm anti-illegal immigrant with this bill, but I'm absolutely pro legal immigration. Hopefully this would encourage folks to go through the steps necessary to get legal status in Arizona.

>> Michael Grant: We have a comprehensive worker program, are we ever going to get there?

>> Tom Boone: Well, I'm not sure.

>> Michael Grant:
Which is a different subject entirely and I apologize for springing it on you, but I mean, the bottom line is, a lot of these people are being drawn here and if you don't have some way to get them here legally to meet the need, it puts all sorts of strains and a whole lot of frustration on the general population.

>> Tom Boone:
I agree with that. A lot of that frustration is brought to me as a state legislature, but I can't do anything in terms of the federal law.

>> Michael Grant: Representative Tom Boone, we're out of time. I appreciate your participation. Representative Phil Lopes, it's good to see you again. Best of luck out there at 1700 west.

>>> Michael Grant: Last year the department of juvenile corrections agreed to fix deficiencies to settle a federal investigation. US Department of Justice had found that juvenile corrections policies led to the suicide of three inmates, physical and sexual abuse and inadequate healthcare and education. A team of observers have been monitoring the department since the agreement and has issued its first report. It applauds juvenile corrections for making what it calls significant strides remedying deficiencies, but points out that the agency lags behind in mental health treatment and education. Earlier I talked to Michael Branham director of the Department of Juvenile Corrections about that report.

>>> Michael Grant:
Michael, the monitors looked at 120 plus areas, and there was either partial compliance or noncompliance in about 100 of those. What's your overall feel on the report?

>> Michael Branham:
Michael, first, thanks for having us back to talk a little bit about this. There were actually 136 remedial issues mentioned in the original agreement signed by the governor. Of that, 91 were in partial compliance this time. I'll talk about that in just a moment. 9 were in noncompliance. Those two areas fell within special education or what we're calling "quality assurance." The quality assurance piece is a new area for us, which has taken a year to develop. We just haven't had an opportunity to see where it's going to go with that.

>> Michael Grant:
Would that be the kind of thing, Michael, like, for example, following up in making sure that the guards are adequately trained? Making sure that the security measures prescribed have been followed. I mean, quality assurance is kind of a difficult thing to get a handle on in this context, but am I somewhere in the ballpark here?

>> Michael Branham:
I think you are right on the money. You do what you practice and you do what you train. Our officers and employees are spending a lot of time going back as we have over the last year and looking at what we do as a business practice, finding new ways to do that and now we're going to practice, practice, practice. The quality assurance piece will allow us to gauge how well we do that. I was reminded the other day in a program on the blue angels about how they do that process every time they get ready for the program. We essentially do the same kind of function now. We do it over and over until we get good at it.

>> Michael Grant:
Now, the special education component, that goes really to the nature of a lot of juvenile population that you have inside your charge; right?

>> Michael Branham:
Absolutely. 45\% of the kids who come into our custody have special education needs. That means the department has done a better job of identifying who those kids are. Now we need to provide a greater level of service than we've ever been called upon to provide before. To do that we have to have more resources.

>> Michael Grant:
One of the areas of partial compliance was suicide prevention. Obviously that was a major concern. In fact, I think the three suicides in close proximity is what triggered much of this inquiry. What does partial compliance mean in relation to suicide prevention?

>> Michael Branham:
We've made the facilities better and much more suicide resistant. We've been working on new training and policies on suicide prevention. And I'm proud to say those are about to be rolled out beginning of next week. We'll begin to train on those, and I think in the next six month review, we'll find, again, a great deal of progress has been made. I'd also like to point out that we have 23 areas of substantial compliance now. That means over the next two other rating periods, these are issues they believe we've really hit the mark on. If we continue with that and we continue to make sure that we're going to live those for the future, then those issues become something we can simply set aside, monitor and then begin to work on other issues of compliance.

>> Michael Grant:
Let me touch briefly again on suicide prevention, though. The partial compliance rating, does that go to programs not yet being installed or programs basically being in place and not yet fully implemented?

>> Michael Branham:
A little of both. We've actually gone back and reviewed many, many documents and many situations that have happened over the history of the department and revamped the entire suicide prevention policy, so that it'll be much better towards the kids that we're beginning to see now. It takes about five referrals to get into the system from the counties. Many of those kids come to us with those kinds of ideations. We've had to do a better job of identifying them on the front and providing prevention services as well as intervention services.

>> Michael Grant:
One of the things that the monitors noted some very substantial progress on was in the area of reporting and handling of abuse, and that also had been a major issue. I know dozens of employees were either fired or resigned in lieu of termination. Was a lot of that weeding out bad people?

>> Michael Branham:
In some cases, yes. We really had to go back and take a look at issues that had happened over a period of time, and I'm pleased to say that we were able to get rid of a lot of folks who didn't deserve to be in such an important department. In their place, we're starting to recruit better trained, better educated and probably more importantly, better for the kids, the kind of people who want to work with children of a troubled nature and the kind of people who will take the department to the next level.

>> Michael Grant:
Michael Grant Branham, thank you for joining us. We'll continue to check in on the story.

>> Michael Branham:
Thanks, Michael, we appreciate the opportunity.

>> Michael Grant:
The budget sent to the Governor, but vetoed last week contained appropriations to build a new state archives building. State archives are currently housed in the basement of the old capitol building, and other state facilities, but problems with weather, bugs, varying temperatures, make it difficult to preserve and access state records. Joining me now is historian and author Doug Kupel to talk about the latest stalemate in state archives. Doug, if it's March, we must be talking about the need for a new state archives building.

>> Doug Kupel:
Well, I'm afraid so Michael. One of these days I'm going to come on the Horizon program and say we've got it funded and we're going to start construction soon, but we're not quite there.

>> Michael Grant:
We saw some video there. I think we've run the thing with the trash can, the water running into the trash can about 133 times, but just summarize overall the major problems associated with the current situation.

>> Doug Kupel:
Well, the major problem is climate control. There is no climate control in the current building, which is the state capitol. It's literally on the fourth floor, so variations in heat and humidity, that damages the papers, and they crack and literally turn to dust over time. Another big problem is space. We've literally run out of space. We have no place to put new documents from local repositories, counties, city governments, where really conditions are worse than they are at the state, basements, attics all over Arizona are really chalk full of historic documents and local governments can't take care of them. The State can't take them. So those are our two biggest issues.

>> Michael Grant:
The documents that we're talking about will run the gamut from -- for lack of a better term, the fairly mundane -- actually to the pretty darned interesting.

>> Doug Kupel:
This is all sorts of things from the constitutional convention of 1910, from Wyatt Earp's expedition papers, to the indictment of Geronimo by a county grand jury. All of these used by a vast array of people, family history researchers, attorneys, journalists, of course. It gets daily heavy use. Another issue is that there is no space for the researchers either when they get down there.

>> Michael Grant:
All right. Well, you came very close.

>> Doug Kupel:
Very close.

>> Michael Grant:
To getting how much?

>> Doug Kupel:
$30 million. The good news is we have a bill approved for $30 million which would have funded a new state archives building, $15 million this year and 15 the next. The bad news is that it was vetoed along with the other bills, but of all of those bills that were vetoed by the Governor, this bill, Senate Bill 1401 was the only one that had unanimous support in the senate. There was not a single dissenting vote. There's really been no opposition to the archives building per se. It's had broad bipartisan support. The only question is how do we pay for it. That's been the big issue.

>> Michael Grant:
Well, let me ask you about the building itself, because I understand that we have some animation of what it might look like. So give me a description of what kind of facility we're talking about.

>> Doug Kupel:
Well, since last August, we've had some architects working for the state, DWL, and they have prepared plans and specifications for the new building. It's going to go on the west side of 19th Avenue. It will have a large storage facility, the goal is to have enough storage for the next 25 years. Also in the building will be a research room where patrons can come in and do research, look at the papers, and even more important is a facility to protect the documents as they come in from these local repositories where they've been under duress. They might be damaged and dirty, have insects that need to be fumigated out of them. So there will be a triage facility for a lack of a better word. Also within there will be a preservation lab, so if there was an emergency in Arizona, which we had a couple this year of floods, where artifacts and documents were damaged by water, we can bring them in the facility, treat them and protect them. Right now, there is no facility like that if there was a severe flood or other event like that.

>> Michael Grant:
As we were taking that simulated tour there, I assume that all of that area we were seeing was climate controlled and more appropriate for the documents?

>> Doug Kupel:
It's climate controlled. People say why does the building cost what it costs, part of the reason is the climate control. It has to be controlled within a few degrees of humidity and the temperature, extremely important.

>> Michael Grant:
All right, well, Doug, I assume that you are pulling for successful budget negotiations with the governor and the legislature?

>> Doug Kupel:
Absolutely. We're hoping it will move up into the priority list. We know there is a lot of priorities in the State of Arizona, but this has been on the list for a long time. It's been on the list for more than 20 years. It's time to get the job done, finish it and late the state move on to other issues.

>> Michael Grant:
All right, Doug Kupel, thank you very much for joining us.

>> Doug Kupel:
My pleasure, Michael.

>> Merry Lucero:
Less than 25\% of Americans have living wills or healthcare directives. If they do, the directives aren't always available when needed. Now you can record your healthcare wishes on line in a state registry. Also, Audubon Arizona's Nature Center in the Rio Salado Habitat Restoration Project. Wednesday on "Horizon."

>> Michael Grant:
Thursday, we'll have the biographer of long-time Arizona congressman John Rhodes here to talk to me about the widely respected politician. And then, of course, on Friday, a panel of reporters will join me for the Journalists' Roundtable. We'll discuss the weeks' news events, including whether or not there has been progress on budget negotiations between the legislature and the Governor. That's Friday on "Horizon." This is Tuesday, thank you very much for being here. I'm Michael Grant. Have a great one. Goodnight.

Juvenile Corrections Update


  • Federal investigators found several glaring problems at the juvenile corrections last year. A new report looks at what's being done to improve conditions.
Guests:
  • Tom Boone - Chair, Budget Appropriations Committee
  • Phil Lopes - House Minority Leader
  • Michael Branham - Director, Department of Juvenile Corrections


View Transcript
>> Michael Grant:
Tonight on "Horizon," adult education classes, college scholarships and child care subsidies would all be denied to illegal aliens, under a bill working its way through the legislature. Federal investigators found several glaring problems at the juvenile corrections last year. A new report looks at what's being done to improve conditions. Also, the condition of the state archive building led lawmakers to approve funding for a new one. We'll look at the need for a new facility, why it's been difficult to get one built. Those issues, next on "Horizon."

>> Announcer:
"Horizon" is made possible by the friends of Channel 8, members who provide financial support to this Arizona PBS station. Thank you.

>> Michael Grant:
Good evening, I'm Michael Grant. Welcome to "Horizon." A video chain that's been advertising no more late fees has agreed to settle a complaint brought by the Attorney General's Office over that new policy. Blockbuster Video agreeing to pay $630,000 to settle the claims brought by Arizona and 46 other states. The attorneys general alleged that Blockbuster's ad campaign was misleading because it failed to tell customers they would be charged the selling price of the video if they failed to return it within 7 days. Blockbuster will provide a full refund or a credit to customers who were charged under the no late fee program. The State senate is soon going to take up a bill that would further limit public benefits for illegal immigrants. House Bill 2030 passed the house last week. In a moment, I'll talk to the bill's sponsor and a lawmaker who voted against the bill, but first a quick look at what it targets.

>>Teacher:
Give me verbs too.

>>Paul Atkinson:
House Bill 2030 seeks to expand the list of government benefits that undocumented or illegal immigrants can benefit from, as approved by the committee of the whole, the bill targets adult education classes, university and community college scholarships and financial aid, utility assistance, and child care assistance. Adult education classes such as this one in central Phoenix offer English to those who want to learn the language or improve their proficiency. House Bill 2030 would prevent illegal immigrants from enrolling in such classes. HB 2030 allows undocumented immigrants to enroll in the state's public community colleges or universities, but have to pay out of state tuition. HB 2030 would also make illegal immigrants ineligible for any kind of state-funded financial aid, fee waivers or scholarships. Finally, House Bill 2030 would clarify that illegal immigrants cannot receive utility assistance or state subsidized childcare. The state would keep track of the number of people who applied for such benefits and were denied because of their immigration status.

>> Michael Grant:
Joining me now is the sponsor of the bill, Tom Boone. He is the chair of the budget appropriations committee. Also here is Phil Lopes, house minority leader, who voted against the bill. Good to see both of you. Mr. Boone, why expand the list of prohibited benefits beyond what the voters acted on in proposition 200?

>> Tom Boone:
Well, I think first of all, this is not meant to be an expansion of proposition 200 in terms of the bill. Maybe I could start with how I came about sponsoring the bill in the first place. There is a lot of folks in my district, as I think there is throughout the state, that quite honestly are frustrated with the whole issue of illegal immigration in this state and other states. And as a state legislator, as you know, there is not too many things we can do about the federal government and the borders and whatnot, but in terms of the state, one of the things I found sitting on the appropriations committee, which is the committee that does the budget for the last two years, there are programs that quite honestly, I and many of my constituents believe that the State shouldn't have to fund for people here illegally.

>> Michael Grant:
Is the goal to deter illegal immigration or simply to make sure that taxpayers don't pay for certain people, illegal aliens, getting certain benefits?

>> Tom Boone:
That's an excellent question. I think that -- I don't think this is going -- I've been asked was this going to change anything in terms of folks coming across the border illegally, and quite honestly, I can't say it would. It certainly isn't going to courage their coming across, of course, but I think it's about what the tax payers are paying in the State of Arizona. It's a funding issue. It's the state not having to pay for these benefits, specifically outlined in the bill, there is four areas, for those that are here illegally.

>> Michael Grant:
If people are here illegally, why should they be entitled to taxpayer assistance in any form?

>> Phil Lopes:
Well, it's -- I think it's a matter of fairness. If a child came here at age 2, grew up here, went to high school here and wants to go to college, why shouldn't we simply allow him or her to do that? Don't we want people residents in this state, who have educations, who have been to college, who can be productive tax payers, but under this proposal, that person would be denied that, and as Representative Boone says, the purpose is to stop immigration, but it will not do that at all. I mean, there is no question about that.

>> Michael Grant:
Sure.

>> Phil Lopes:
As far as the cost is concerned, that's what's really, really curious about this. We don't know what the cost is. You know, for example, the few students who will go to college, who may not be residents, who may not be citizens, how much will that cost? As a society, as a State, we have to ask ourselves, is the incremental cost of that worth having an educated populace? I happen to think it is.

>> Michael Grant:
Constitution says we should provide to our in-state residents a college education as nearly free as possible, I think. Don't you think the founders had in mind people who were lawfully here when they wrote that into the constitution?

>> Phil Lopes: If we were providing a college education to our residents today that was as nearly free as possible, it costs about $15,000 a year for a U of A student to go to the U of A for a year. That's nowhere near free. We are subsidizing university, there is no question about that. But is the marginal cost of a subsidy to the few students that are going that have been in Arizona for -- in many cases, most of their lives, isn't that incremental cost worth it? I think it is.

>> Michael Grant:
Seems to me Mr. Lopes's argument goes not only to college education, but adult education. The point is maybe we are shooting ourselves in the foot not to, for example, provide English lessons to people who are here filling an economic need. Are we being counterproductive with that?

>> Tom Boone:
I don't think so. I think that -- again, it's a matter of folks that are here illegally, and should the State have to pay for those benefits for those folks that are here? And one of the things I'd like to correct is the issue of higher education in terms of admittance, because I think Mr. Lopes mentioned something that actually was a minor drafting error in the bill that has been corrected, is being corrected.

>> Michael Grant:
You have changed that so that they could attend, but they have to pay out of state tuition?

>> Tom Boone:
That's correct. In other words, if you are here illegally, you would not be qualified to receive in-state residence status, which means obviously you pay less tuition and the State would be funding a portion of the education. In addition to that, it would deny all financial aid or grants or tuition waivers of any kind, if in fact the state is paying any portion of those. Again, it's back to a state funding issue.

>> Michael Grant:
If we're going to charge some poor guy from California out of state tuition, shouldn't we charge somebody from Sonora, Mexico out of state tuition?

>> Phil Lopes:
Of course, that's a foreign student. He comes to go to school. What we're talking about are people who live here, and in some cases lived here most of their lives.

>> Michael Grant:
But they don't live here legally. I mean, is there a distinction there?

>> Phil Lopes:
Of course, there is a distinction there, but to draw that distinction and implement that distinction, based on what it would cost us, I think is false economy. I think it's an issue of how do we want to treat the people who live here? And there is no question that they are here illegally, but do we want to deny them the same benefits as -- deny somebody who has lived here for 20 years the same benefits that somebody else who has lived here for 20 years, the only difference is they are not a citizen?

>> Michael Grant:
Is that one way, though, to encourage them to do it the right way? There is a study recently that says that ironically some these kinds of restrictions are encouraging people to apply for United States citizenship sooner than they otherwise would or perhaps forever, then they never would.

>> Phil Lopes:
I think that's fine, but we're talking about adults in that case. In many cases the colleges we're talking about are not -- cannot do that until they reach the age of maturity, but, yeah, I think we should be encouraging people to become citizens. But this is -- to do this, to provide them college education, for example, or adult education, is not pulling people from Mexico. They are not coming here to go to college. They are not coming here to go to -- to take English classes. They are coming here for all different kinds of other reasons, and they help the economy, and we shouldn't -- we should think of the benefit that they provide to the State of Arizona.

>> Tom Boone:
Michael, I want to mention something about cost because Mr. Lopes brought up something that I think is an important part of the bill. One of the things that's frustrated me since I've been with the legislature, and this is beginning of my third year, is that what is the true cost? What is the cost in terms of the State budget as far as what's being paid for benefits of the kind indicated in this bill and others for that matter for folks that are here illegally. One of the provisions of this bill is, in fact, saying that if -- of the ones that apply for these benefits, specifically that are listed in the bill, of those that have applied, who is being denied the actual benefit on the basis of eligibility? The intent of that is to try to get a handle on what the true cost is. When I was first with the legislature two years ago, we introduced a bill to have the auditor general go out and actually try to calculate going into apartment house services

>> Michael Grant:
Creating a database on --

>> Tom Boone:
Exactly, because that's an issue, what is the true cost?

>> Michael Grant:
Does this bill take the next Proposition 200 step though, and require state employees to report that they have, for example, if you show up at a registrar's office and you apply, do they have a reporting obligation?

>> Tom Boone:
No, they do not. In fact, that's a provision that was in proposition 200 as you are aware, but in this particular bill, it's all about eligibility and state funding of those benefits, if you will, for folks here illegally.

>> Michael Grant:
Clarify something for me, you would keep track of the data but anonymously, so as to track the cost?

>> Tom Boone:
Right, yeah, just sheer numbers. It's trying to get a handle on the actual numbers of folks that apply and then in fact would be denied as a result of this eligibility issue.

>> Michael Grant:
See, if you pass this bill, you'd have the answer to some of the questions that you are raising tonight. Have you changed your opinion on it?

>> Phil Lopes:
Well, all we're going to have -- we're going to have the numbers. I don't know if we're going to have the costs. What we will have, though -- it reminds me of somebody who knows the cost of everything in and the value of nothing. The act of gathering all of this data, we have to gather the data on all four of the programs, family literacy, college education, adult literacy, child care, and we're going to have to create a whole other function of government in order to -- not another function of government, but another task that we're giving people to gather this information and report it. Is it worth it? Is it worth it? That's the question.

>> Michael Grant:
Is utility assistance cleaner at all in your mind? I mean, that doesn't involve some of the educational aspects that we have been talking about. Is there a stronger case to be made for saying, now listen, you ought to pay your own utilities, if you are here illegally?

>> Phil Lopes:
There have been 18 bills, Mr. Grant, introduced in the House this year that any reasonable person reading them would say, this is an anti-immigrant bill. So this is just one of a whole series of bills, of bills that I think are sending a message to the people who live here, that's basically, we don't like you being here. We like your -- the sweat of your brow, but we're not going to help you in any way. These are people who pay taxes, who obey the laws, who do our work, and we're going to turn around and say, when you need some assistance with your utilities, we're not going to give it to you? No, we don't want to do that.

>> Michael Grant:
Are you anti-immigrant with this bill?

>> Tom Boone:
No, I'm anti-illegal immigrant with this bill, but I'm absolutely pro legal immigration. Hopefully this would encourage folks to go through the steps necessary to get legal status in Arizona.

>> Michael Grant: We have a comprehensive worker program, are we ever going to get there?

>> Tom Boone: Well, I'm not sure.

>> Michael Grant:
Which is a different subject entirely and I apologize for springing it on you, but I mean, the bottom line is, a lot of these people are being drawn here and if you don't have some way to get them here legally to meet the need, it puts all sorts of strains and a whole lot of frustration on the general population.

>> Tom Boone:
I agree with that. A lot of that frustration is brought to me as a state legislature, but I can't do anything in terms of the federal law.

>> Michael Grant: Representative Tom Boone, we're out of time. I appreciate your participation. Representative Phil Lopes, it's good to see you again. Best of luck out there at 1700 west.

>>> Michael Grant: Last year the department of juvenile corrections agreed to fix deficiencies to settle a federal investigation. US Department of Justice had found that juvenile corrections policies led to the suicide of three inmates, physical and sexual abuse and inadequate healthcare and education. A team of observers have been monitoring the department since the agreement and has issued its first report. It applauds juvenile corrections for making what it calls significant strides remedying deficiencies, but points out that the agency lags behind in mental health treatment and education. Earlier I talked to Michael Branham director of the Department of Juvenile Corrections about that report.

>>> Michael Grant:
Michael, the monitors looked at 120 plus areas, and there was either partial compliance or noncompliance in about 100 of those. What's your overall feel on the report?

>> Michael Branham:
Michael, first, thanks for having us back to talk a little bit about this. There were actually 136 remedial issues mentioned in the original agreement signed by the governor. Of that, 91 were in partial compliance this time. I'll talk about that in just a moment. 9 were in noncompliance. Those two areas fell within special education or what we're calling "quality assurance." The quality assurance piece is a new area for us, which has taken a year to develop. We just haven't had an opportunity to see where it's going to go with that.

>> Michael Grant:
Would that be the kind of thing, Michael, like, for example, following up in making sure that the guards are adequately trained? Making sure that the security measures prescribed have been followed. I mean, quality assurance is kind of a difficult thing to get a handle on in this context, but am I somewhere in the ballpark here?

>> Michael Branham:
I think you are right on the money. You do what you practice and you do what you train. Our officers and employees are spending a lot of time going back as we have over the last year and looking at what we do as a business practice, finding new ways to do that and now we're going to practice, practice, practice. The quality assurance piece will allow us to gauge how well we do that. I was reminded the other day in a program on the blue angels about how they do that process every time they get ready for the program. We essentially do the same kind of function now. We do it over and over until we get good at it.

>> Michael Grant:
Now, the special education component, that goes really to the nature of a lot of juvenile population that you have inside your charge; right?

>> Michael Branham:
Absolutely. 45\% of the kids who come into our custody have special education needs. That means the department has done a better job of identifying who those kids are. Now we need to provide a greater level of service than we've ever been called upon to provide before. To do that we have to have more resources.

>> Michael Grant:
One of the areas of partial compliance was suicide prevention. Obviously that was a major concern. In fact, I think the three suicides in close proximity is what triggered much of this inquiry. What does partial compliance mean in relation to suicide prevention?

>> Michael Branham:
We've made the facilities better and much more suicide resistant. We've been working on new training and policies on suicide prevention. And I'm proud to say those are about to be rolled out beginning of next week. We'll begin to train on those, and I think in the next six month review, we'll find, again, a great deal of progress has been made. I'd also like to point out that we have 23 areas of substantial compliance now. That means over the next two other rating periods, these are issues they believe we've really hit the mark on. If we continue with that and we continue to make sure that we're going to live those for the future, then those issues become something we can simply set aside, monitor and then begin to work on other issues of compliance.

>> Michael Grant:
Let me touch briefly again on suicide prevention, though. The partial compliance rating, does that go to programs not yet being installed or programs basically being in place and not yet fully implemented?

>> Michael Branham:
A little of both. We've actually gone back and reviewed many, many documents and many situations that have happened over the history of the department and revamped the entire suicide prevention policy, so that it'll be much better towards the kids that we're beginning to see now. It takes about five referrals to get into the system from the counties. Many of those kids come to us with those kinds of ideations. We've had to do a better job of identifying them on the front and providing prevention services as well as intervention services.

>> Michael Grant:
One of the things that the monitors noted some very substantial progress on was in the area of reporting and handling of abuse, and that also had been a major issue. I know dozens of employees were either fired or resigned in lieu of termination. Was a lot of that weeding out bad people?

>> Michael Branham:
In some cases, yes. We really had to go back and take a look at issues that had happened over a period of time, and I'm pleased to say that we were able to get rid of a lot of folks who didn't deserve to be in such an important department. In their place, we're starting to recruit better trained, better educated and probably more importantly, better for the kids, the kind of people who want to work with children of a troubled nature and the kind of people who will take the department to the next level.

>> Michael Grant:
Michael Grant Branham, thank you for joining us. We'll continue to check in on the story.

>> Michael Branham:
Thanks, Michael, we appreciate the opportunity.

>> Michael Grant:
The budget sent to the Governor, but vetoed last week contained appropriations to build a new state archives building. State archives are currently housed in the basement of the old capitol building, and other state facilities, but problems with weather, bugs, varying temperatures, make it difficult to preserve and access state records. Joining me now is historian and author Doug Kupel to talk about the latest stalemate in state archives. Doug, if it's March, we must be talking about the need for a new state archives building.

>> Doug Kupel:
Well, I'm afraid so Michael. One of these days I'm going to come on the Horizon program and say we've got it funded and we're going to start construction soon, but we're not quite there.

>> Michael Grant:
We saw some video there. I think we've run the thing with the trash can, the water running into the trash can about 133 times, but just summarize overall the major problems associated with the current situation.

>> Doug Kupel:
Well, the major problem is climate control. There is no climate control in the current building, which is the state capitol. It's literally on the fourth floor, so variations in heat and humidity, that damages the papers, and they crack and literally turn to dust over time. Another big problem is space. We've literally run out of space. We have no place to put new documents from local repositories, counties, city governments, where really conditions are worse than they are at the state, basements, attics all over Arizona are really chalk full of historic documents and local governments can't take care of them. The State can't take them. So those are our two biggest issues.

>> Michael Grant:
The documents that we're talking about will run the gamut from -- for lack of a better term, the fairly mundane -- actually to the pretty darned interesting.

>> Doug Kupel:
This is all sorts of things from the constitutional convention of 1910, from Wyatt Earp's expedition papers, to the indictment of Geronimo by a county grand jury. All of these used by a vast array of people, family history researchers, attorneys, journalists, of course. It gets daily heavy use. Another issue is that there is no space for the researchers either when they get down there.

>> Michael Grant:
All right. Well, you came very close.

>> Doug Kupel:
Very close.

>> Michael Grant:
To getting how much?

>> Doug Kupel:
$30 million. The good news is we have a bill approved for $30 million which would have funded a new state archives building, $15 million this year and 15 the next. The bad news is that it was vetoed along with the other bills, but of all of those bills that were vetoed by the Governor, this bill, Senate Bill 1401 was the only one that had unanimous support in the senate. There was not a single dissenting vote. There's really been no opposition to the archives building per se. It's had broad bipartisan support. The only question is how do we pay for it. That's been the big issue.

>> Michael Grant:
Well, let me ask you about the building itself, because I understand that we have some animation of what it might look like. So give me a description of what kind of facility we're talking about.

>> Doug Kupel:
Well, since last August, we've had some architects working for the state, DWL, and they have prepared plans and specifications for the new building. It's going to go on the west side of 19th Avenue. It will have a large storage facility, the goal is to have enough storage for the next 25 years. Also in the building will be a research room where patrons can come in and do research, look at the papers, and even more important is a facility to protect the documents as they come in from these local repositories where they've been under duress. They might be damaged and dirty, have insects that need to be fumigated out of them. So there will be a triage facility for a lack of a better word. Also within there will be a preservation lab, so if there was an emergency in Arizona, which we had a couple this year of floods, where artifacts and documents were damaged by water, we can bring them in the facility, treat them and protect them. Right now, there is no facility like that if there was a severe flood or other event like that.

>> Michael Grant:
As we were taking that simulated tour there, I assume that all of that area we were seeing was climate controlled and more appropriate for the documents?

>> Doug Kupel:
It's climate controlled. People say why does the building cost what it costs, part of the reason is the climate control. It has to be controlled within a few degrees of humidity and the temperature, extremely important.

>> Michael Grant:
All right, well, Doug, I assume that you are pulling for successful budget negotiations with the governor and the legislature?

>> Doug Kupel:
Absolutely. We're hoping it will move up into the priority list. We know there is a lot of priorities in the State of Arizona, but this has been on the list for a long time. It's been on the list for more than 20 years. It's time to get the job done, finish it and late the state move on to other issues.

>> Michael Grant:
All right, Doug Kupel, thank you very much for joining us.

>> Doug Kupel:
My pleasure, Michael.

>> Merry Lucero:
Less than 25\% of Americans have living wills or healthcare directives. If they do, the directives aren't always available when needed. Now you can record your healthcare wishes on line in a state registry. Also, Audubon Arizona's Nature Center in the Rio Salado Habitat Restoration Project. Wednesday on "Horizon."

>> Michael Grant:
Thursday, we'll have the biographer of long-time Arizona congressman John Rhodes here to talk to me about the widely respected politician. And then, of course, on Friday, a panel of reporters will join me for the Journalists' Roundtable. We'll discuss the weeks' news events, including whether or not there has been progress on budget negotiations between the legislature and the Governor. That's Friday on "Horizon." This is Tuesday, thank you very much for being here. I'm Michael Grant. Have a great one. Goodnight.

state Archive Building


  • The condition of the state archive building led lawmakers to approve funding for a new one. "Horizon" looks at the need for a new facility and why it's been difficult to get one built.
Guests:
  • Tom Boone - Chair, Budget Appropriations Committee
  • Phil Lopes - House Minority Leader
  • Michael Branham - Director, Department of Juvenile Corrections


View Transcript
>> Michael Grant:
Tonight on "Horizon," adult education classes, college scholarships and child care subsidies would all be denied to illegal aliens, under a bill working its way through the legislature. Federal investigators found several glaring problems at the juvenile corrections last year. A new report looks at what's being done to improve conditions. Also, the condition of the state archive building led lawmakers to approve funding for a new one. We'll look at the need for a new facility, why it's been difficult to get one built. Those issues, next on "Horizon."

>> Announcer:
"Horizon" is made possible by the friends of Channel 8, members who provide financial support to this Arizona PBS station. Thank you.

>> Michael Grant:
Good evening, I'm Michael Grant. Welcome to "Horizon." A video chain that's been advertising no more late fees has agreed to settle a complaint brought by the Attorney General's Office over that new policy. Blockbuster Video agreeing to pay $630,000 to settle the claims brought by Arizona and 46 other states. The attorneys general alleged that Blockbuster's ad campaign was misleading because it failed to tell customers they would be charged the selling price of the video if they failed to return it within 7 days. Blockbuster will provide a full refund or a credit to customers who were charged under the no late fee program. The State senate is soon going to take up a bill that would further limit public benefits for illegal immigrants. House Bill 2030 passed the house last week. In a moment, I'll talk to the bill's sponsor and a lawmaker who voted against the bill, but first a quick look at what it targets.

>>Teacher:
Give me verbs too.

>>Paul Atkinson:
House Bill 2030 seeks to expand the list of government benefits that undocumented or illegal immigrants can benefit from, as approved by the committee of the whole, the bill targets adult education classes, university and community college scholarships and financial aid, utility assistance, and child care assistance. Adult education classes such as this one in central Phoenix offer English to those who want to learn the language or improve their proficiency. House Bill 2030 would prevent illegal immigrants from enrolling in such classes. HB 2030 allows undocumented immigrants to enroll in the state's public community colleges or universities, but have to pay out of state tuition. HB 2030 would also make illegal immigrants ineligible for any kind of state-funded financial aid, fee waivers or scholarships. Finally, House Bill 2030 would clarify that illegal immigrants cannot receive utility assistance or state subsidized childcare. The state would keep track of the number of people who applied for such benefits and were denied because of their immigration status.

>> Michael Grant:
Joining me now is the sponsor of the bill, Tom Boone. He is the chair of the budget appropriations committee. Also here is Phil Lopes, house minority leader, who voted against the bill. Good to see both of you. Mr. Boone, why expand the list of prohibited benefits beyond what the voters acted on in proposition 200?

>> Tom Boone:
Well, I think first of all, this is not meant to be an expansion of proposition 200 in terms of the bill. Maybe I could start with how I came about sponsoring the bill in the first place. There is a lot of folks in my district, as I think there is throughout the state, that quite honestly are frustrated with the whole issue of illegal immigration in this state and other states. And as a state legislator, as you know, there is not too many things we can do about the federal government and the borders and whatnot, but in terms of the state, one of the things I found sitting on the appropriations committee, which is the committee that does the budget for the last two years, there are programs that quite honestly, I and many of my constituents believe that the State shouldn't have to fund for people here illegally.

>> Michael Grant:
Is the goal to deter illegal immigration or simply to make sure that taxpayers don't pay for certain people, illegal aliens, getting certain benefits?

>> Tom Boone:
That's an excellent question. I think that -- I don't think this is going -- I've been asked was this going to change anything in terms of folks coming across the border illegally, and quite honestly, I can't say it would. It certainly isn't going to courage their coming across, of course, but I think it's about what the tax payers are paying in the State of Arizona. It's a funding issue. It's the state not having to pay for these benefits, specifically outlined in the bill, there is four areas, for those that are here illegally.

>> Michael Grant:
If people are here illegally, why should they be entitled to taxpayer assistance in any form?

>> Phil Lopes:
Well, it's -- I think it's a matter of fairness. If a child came here at age 2, grew up here, went to high school here and wants to go to college, why shouldn't we simply allow him or her to do that? Don't we want people residents in this state, who have educations, who have been to college, who can be productive tax payers, but under this proposal, that person would be denied that, and as Representative Boone says, the purpose is to stop immigration, but it will not do that at all. I mean, there is no question about that.

>> Michael Grant:
Sure.

>> Phil Lopes:
As far as the cost is concerned, that's what's really, really curious about this. We don't know what the cost is. You know, for example, the few students who will go to college, who may not be residents, who may not be citizens, how much will that cost? As a society, as a State, we have to ask ourselves, is the incremental cost of that worth having an educated populace? I happen to think it is.

>> Michael Grant:
Constitution says we should provide to our in-state residents a college education as nearly free as possible, I think. Don't you think the founders had in mind people who were lawfully here when they wrote that into the constitution?

>> Phil Lopes: If we were providing a college education to our residents today that was as nearly free as possible, it costs about $15,000 a year for a U of A student to go to the U of A for a year. That's nowhere near free. We are subsidizing university, there is no question about that. But is the marginal cost of a subsidy to the few students that are going that have been in Arizona for -- in many cases, most of their lives, isn't that incremental cost worth it? I think it is.

>> Michael Grant:
Seems to me Mr. Lopes's argument goes not only to college education, but adult education. The point is maybe we are shooting ourselves in the foot not to, for example, provide English lessons to people who are here filling an economic need. Are we being counterproductive with that?

>> Tom Boone:
I don't think so. I think that -- again, it's a matter of folks that are here illegally, and should the State have to pay for those benefits for those folks that are here? And one of the things I'd like to correct is the issue of higher education in terms of admittance, because I think Mr. Lopes mentioned something that actually was a minor drafting error in the bill that has been corrected, is being corrected.

>> Michael Grant:
You have changed that so that they could attend, but they have to pay out of state tuition?

>> Tom Boone:
That's correct. In other words, if you are here illegally, you would not be qualified to receive in-state residence status, which means obviously you pay less tuition and the State would be funding a portion of the education. In addition to that, it would deny all financial aid or grants or tuition waivers of any kind, if in fact the state is paying any portion of those. Again, it's back to a state funding issue.

>> Michael Grant:
If we're going to charge some poor guy from California out of state tuition, shouldn't we charge somebody from Sonora, Mexico out of state tuition?

>> Phil Lopes:
Of course, that's a foreign student. He comes to go to school. What we're talking about are people who live here, and in some cases lived here most of their lives.

>> Michael Grant:
But they don't live here legally. I mean, is there a distinction there?

>> Phil Lopes:
Of course, there is a distinction there, but to draw that distinction and implement that distinction, based on what it would cost us, I think is false economy. I think it's an issue of how do we want to treat the people who live here? And there is no question that they are here illegally, but do we want to deny them the same benefits as -- deny somebody who has lived here for 20 years the same benefits that somebody else who has lived here for 20 years, the only difference is they are not a citizen?

>> Michael Grant:
Is that one way, though, to encourage them to do it the right way? There is a study recently that says that ironically some these kinds of restrictions are encouraging people to apply for United States citizenship sooner than they otherwise would or perhaps forever, then they never would.

>> Phil Lopes:
I think that's fine, but we're talking about adults in that case. In many cases the colleges we're talking about are not -- cannot do that until they reach the age of maturity, but, yeah, I think we should be encouraging people to become citizens. But this is -- to do this, to provide them college education, for example, or adult education, is not pulling people from Mexico. They are not coming here to go to college. They are not coming here to go to -- to take English classes. They are coming here for all different kinds of other reasons, and they help the economy, and we shouldn't -- we should think of the benefit that they provide to the State of Arizona.

>> Tom Boone:
Michael, I want to mention something about cost because Mr. Lopes brought up something that I think is an important part of the bill. One of the things that's frustrated me since I've been with the legislature, and this is beginning of my third year, is that what is the true cost? What is the cost in terms of the State budget as far as what's being paid for benefits of the kind indicated in this bill and others for that matter for folks that are here illegally. One of the provisions of this bill is, in fact, saying that if -- of the ones that apply for these benefits, specifically that are listed in the bill, of those that have applied, who is being denied the actual benefit on the basis of eligibility? The intent of that is to try to get a handle on what the true cost is. When I was first with the legislature two years ago, we introduced a bill to have the auditor general go out and actually try to calculate going into apartment house services

>> Michael Grant:
Creating a database on --

>> Tom Boone:
Exactly, because that's an issue, what is the true cost?

>> Michael Grant:
Does this bill take the next Proposition 200 step though, and require state employees to report that they have, for example, if you show up at a registrar's office and you apply, do they have a reporting obligation?

>> Tom Boone:
No, they do not. In fact, that's a provision that was in proposition 200 as you are aware, but in this particular bill, it's all about eligibility and state funding of those benefits, if you will, for folks here illegally.

>> Michael Grant:
Clarify something for me, you would keep track of the data but anonymously, so as to track the cost?

>> Tom Boone:
Right, yeah, just sheer numbers. It's trying to get a handle on the actual numbers of folks that apply and then in fact would be denied as a result of this eligibility issue.

>> Michael Grant:
See, if you pass this bill, you'd have the answer to some of the questions that you are raising tonight. Have you changed your opinion on it?

>> Phil Lopes:
Well, all we're going to have -- we're going to have the numbers. I don't know if we're going to have the costs. What we will have, though -- it reminds me of somebody who knows the cost of everything in and the value of nothing. The act of gathering all of this data, we have to gather the data on all four of the programs, family literacy, college education, adult literacy, child care, and we're going to have to create a whole other function of government in order to -- not another function of government, but another task that we're giving people to gather this information and report it. Is it worth it? Is it worth it? That's the question.

>> Michael Grant:
Is utility assistance cleaner at all in your mind? I mean, that doesn't involve some of the educational aspects that we have been talking about. Is there a stronger case to be made for saying, now listen, you ought to pay your own utilities, if you are here illegally?

>> Phil Lopes:
There have been 18 bills, Mr. Grant, introduced in the House this year that any reasonable person reading them would say, this is an anti-immigrant bill. So this is just one of a whole series of bills, of bills that I think are sending a message to the people who live here, that's basically, we don't like you being here. We like your -- the sweat of your brow, but we're not going to help you in any way. These are people who pay taxes, who obey the laws, who do our work, and we're going to turn around and say, when you need some assistance with your utilities, we're not going to give it to you? No, we don't want to do that.

>> Michael Grant:
Are you anti-immigrant with this bill?

>> Tom Boone:
No, I'm anti-illegal immigrant with this bill, but I'm absolutely pro legal immigration. Hopefully this would encourage folks to go through the steps necessary to get legal status in Arizona.

>> Michael Grant: We have a comprehensive worker program, are we ever going to get there?

>> Tom Boone: Well, I'm not sure.

>> Michael Grant:
Which is a different subject entirely and I apologize for springing it on you, but I mean, the bottom line is, a lot of these people are being drawn here and if you don't have some way to get them here legally to meet the need, it puts all sorts of strains and a whole lot of frustration on the general population.

>> Tom Boone:
I agree with that. A lot of that frustration is brought to me as a state legislature, but I can't do anything in terms of the federal law.

>> Michael Grant: Representative Tom Boone, we're out of time. I appreciate your participation. Representative Phil Lopes, it's good to see you again. Best of luck out there at 1700 west.

>>> Michael Grant: Last year the department of juvenile corrections agreed to fix deficiencies to settle a federal investigation. US Department of Justice had found that juvenile corrections policies led to the suicide of three inmates, physical and sexual abuse and inadequate healthcare and education. A team of observers have been monitoring the department since the agreement and has issued its first report. It applauds juvenile corrections for making what it calls significant strides remedying deficiencies, but points out that the agency lags behind in mental health treatment and education. Earlier I talked to Michael Branham director of the Department of Juvenile Corrections about that report.

>>> Michael Grant:
Michael, the monitors looked at 120 plus areas, and there was either partial compliance or noncompliance in about 100 of those. What's your overall feel on the report?

>> Michael Branham:
Michael, first, thanks for having us back to talk a little bit about this. There were actually 136 remedial issues mentioned in the original agreement signed by the governor. Of that, 91 were in partial compliance this time. I'll talk about that in just a moment. 9 were in noncompliance. Those two areas fell within special education or what we're calling "quality assurance." The quality assurance piece is a new area for us, which has taken a year to develop. We just haven't had an opportunity to see where it's going to go with that.

>> Michael Grant:
Would that be the kind of thing, Michael, like, for example, following up in making sure that the guards are adequately trained? Making sure that the security measures prescribed have been followed. I mean, quality assurance is kind of a difficult thing to get a handle on in this context, but am I somewhere in the ballpark here?

>> Michael Branham:
I think you are right on the money. You do what you practice and you do what you train. Our officers and employees are spending a lot of time going back as we have over the last year and looking at what we do as a business practice, finding new ways to do that and now we're going to practice, practice, practice. The quality assurance piece will allow us to gauge how well we do that. I was reminded the other day in a program on the blue angels about how they do that process every time they get ready for the program. We essentially do the same kind of function now. We do it over and over until we get good at it.

>> Michael Grant:
Now, the special education component, that goes really to the nature of a lot of juvenile population that you have inside your charge; right?

>> Michael Branham:
Absolutely. 45\% of the kids who come into our custody have special education needs. That means the department has done a better job of identifying who those kids are. Now we need to provide a greater level of service than we've ever been called upon to provide before. To do that we have to have more resources.

>> Michael Grant:
One of the areas of partial compliance was suicide prevention. Obviously that was a major concern. In fact, I think the three suicides in close proximity is what triggered much of this inquiry. What does partial compliance mean in relation to suicide prevention?

>> Michael Branham:
We've made the facilities better and much more suicide resistant. We've been working on new training and policies on suicide prevention. And I'm proud to say those are about to be rolled out beginning of next week. We'll begin to train on those, and I think in the next six month review, we'll find, again, a great deal of progress has been made. I'd also like to point out that we have 23 areas of substantial compliance now. That means over the next two other rating periods, these are issues they believe we've really hit the mark on. If we continue with that and we continue to make sure that we're going to live those for the future, then those issues become something we can simply set aside, monitor and then begin to work on other issues of compliance.

>> Michael Grant:
Let me touch briefly again on suicide prevention, though. The partial compliance rating, does that go to programs not yet being installed or programs basically being in place and not yet fully implemented?

>> Michael Branham:
A little of both. We've actually gone back and reviewed many, many documents and many situations that have happened over the history of the department and revamped the entire suicide prevention policy, so that it'll be much better towards the kids that we're beginning to see now. It takes about five referrals to get into the system from the counties. Many of those kids come to us with those kinds of ideations. We've had to do a better job of identifying them on the front and providing prevention services as well as intervention services.

>> Michael Grant:
One of the things that the monitors noted some very substantial progress on was in the area of reporting and handling of abuse, and that also had been a major issue. I know dozens of employees were either fired or resigned in lieu of termination. Was a lot of that weeding out bad people?

>> Michael Branham:
In some cases, yes. We really had to go back and take a look at issues that had happened over a period of time, and I'm pleased to say that we were able to get rid of a lot of folks who didn't deserve to be in such an important department. In their place, we're starting to recruit better trained, better educated and probably more importantly, better for the kids, the kind of people who want to work with children of a troubled nature and the kind of people who will take the department to the next level.

>> Michael Grant:
Michael Grant Branham, thank you for joining us. We'll continue to check in on the story.

>> Michael Branham:
Thanks, Michael, we appreciate the opportunity.

>> Michael Grant:
The budget sent to the Governor, but vetoed last week contained appropriations to build a new state archives building. State archives are currently housed in the basement of the old capitol building, and other state facilities, but problems with weather, bugs, varying temperatures, make it difficult to preserve and access state records. Joining me now is historian and author Doug Kupel to talk about the latest stalemate in state archives. Doug, if it's March, we must be talking about the need for a new state archives building.

>> Doug Kupel:
Well, I'm afraid so Michael. One of these days I'm going to come on the Horizon program and say we've got it funded and we're going to start construction soon, but we're not quite there.

>> Michael Grant:
We saw some video there. I think we've run the thing with the trash can, the water running into the trash can about 133 times, but just summarize overall the major problems associated with the current situation.

>> Doug Kupel:
Well, the major problem is climate control. There is no climate control in the current building, which is the state capitol. It's literally on the fourth floor, so variations in heat and humidity, that damages the papers, and they crack and literally turn to dust over time. Another big problem is space. We've literally run out of space. We have no place to put new documents from local repositories, counties, city governments, where really conditions are worse than they are at the state, basements, attics all over Arizona are really chalk full of historic documents and local governments can't take care of them. The State can't take them. So those are our two biggest issues.

>> Michael Grant:
The documents that we're talking about will run the gamut from -- for lack of a better term, the fairly mundane -- actually to the pretty darned interesting.

>> Doug Kupel:
This is all sorts of things from the constitutional convention of 1910, from Wyatt Earp's expedition papers, to the indictment of Geronimo by a county grand jury. All of these used by a vast array of people, family history researchers, attorneys, journalists, of course. It gets daily heavy use. Another issue is that there is no space for the researchers either when they get down there.

>> Michael Grant:
All right. Well, you came very close.

>> Doug Kupel:
Very close.

>> Michael Grant:
To getting how much?

>> Doug Kupel:
$30 million. The good news is we have a bill approved for $30 million which would have funded a new state archives building, $15 million this year and 15 the next. The bad news is that it was vetoed along with the other bills, but of all of those bills that were vetoed by the Governor, this bill, Senate Bill 1401 was the only one that had unanimous support in the senate. There was not a single dissenting vote. There's really been no opposition to the archives building per se. It's had broad bipartisan support. The only question is how do we pay for it. That's been the big issue.

>> Michael Grant:
Well, let me ask you about the building itself, because I understand that we have some animation of what it might look like. So give me a description of what kind of facility we're talking about.

>> Doug Kupel:
Well, since last August, we've had some architects working for the state, DWL, and they have prepared plans and specifications for the new building. It's going to go on the west side of 19th Avenue. It will have a large storage facility, the goal is to have enough storage for the next 25 years. Also in the building will be a research room where patrons can come in and do research, look at the papers, and even more important is a facility to protect the documents as they come in from these local repositories where they've been under duress. They might be damaged and dirty, have insects that need to be fumigated out of them. So there will be a triage facility for a lack of a better word. Also within there will be a preservation lab, so if there was an emergency in Arizona, which we had a couple this year of floods, where artifacts and documents were damaged by water, we can bring them in the facility, treat them and protect them. Right now, there is no facility like that if there was a severe flood or other event like that.

>> Michael Grant:
As we were taking that simulated tour there, I assume that all of that area we were seeing was climate controlled and more appropriate for the documents?

>> Doug Kupel:
It's climate controlled. People say why does the building cost what it costs, part of the reason is the climate control. It has to be controlled within a few degrees of humidity and the temperature, extremely important.

>> Michael Grant:
All right, well, Doug, I assume that you are pulling for successful budget negotiations with the governor and the legislature?

>> Doug Kupel:
Absolutely. We're hoping it will move up into the priority list. We know there is a lot of priorities in the State of Arizona, but this has been on the list for a long time. It's been on the list for more than 20 years. It's time to get the job done, finish it and late the state move on to other issues.

>> Michael Grant:
All right, Doug Kupel, thank you very much for joining us.

>> Doug Kupel:
My pleasure, Michael.

>> Merry Lucero:
Less than 25\% of Americans have living wills or healthcare directives. If they do, the directives aren't always available when needed. Now you can record your healthcare wishes on line in a state registry. Also, Audubon Arizona's Nature Center in the Rio Salado Habitat Restoration Project. Wednesday on "Horizon."

>> Michael Grant:
Thursday, we'll have the biographer of long-time Arizona congressman John Rhodes here to talk to me about the widely respected politician. And then, of course, on Friday, a panel of reporters will join me for the Journalists' Roundtable. We'll discuss the weeks' news events, including whether or not there has been progress on budget negotiations between the legislature and the Governor. That's Friday on "Horizon." This is Tuesday, thank you very much for being here. I'm Michael Grant. Have a great one. Goodnight.

What's on?

Content Partner:

  About KAET Contact Support Legal Follow Us  
  About Eight
Mission/Impact
History
Site Map
Pressroom
Contact Us
Sign up for e-news
Pledge to Eight
Donate Monthly
Volunteer
Other ways to support
FCC Public Files
Privacy Policy
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Google+
Pinterest
 

Need help accessing? Contact disabilityaccess@asu.edu

Eight is a member-supported service of Arizona State University    Copyright Arizona Board of Regents