September 17, 2012
Host: Ted Simons
Arizona Giving & Leading: Nonprofits & Civic Engagement
- Timothy Schmaltz, an instructor for ASU Lodestar Center’s Nonprofit Management Institute, talks about opportunities for nonprofits to promote civic engagement.
- Timothy Schmaltz - Instructor, ASU Lodestar Center Nonprofit Management Institute
| Keywords: giving
Ted Simons: Nonprofits provide a community service, but they can also drive political and social change. That's according to our next guest, who believes that nonprofits have an opportunity to make a difference this election season. Here to explain is Timothy Schmoltz, he's an instructor for the ASU Lodestar center's nonprofit management institute. He's also a coordinator for the nonprofit protecting Arizona's family coalition. Thanks for joining us. Nonprofits promote civic engagement. What are we talking about here?
Timothy Schmoltz: Well, in our particular case this year, we're doing an -- it's an election year, and it's legal for nonprofits to be involved in elections, do voter registration, voter turnout. Work on ballot measures, and that's -- so we have am lied ourselves with lots of groups in town, and we're promoting voter registration, and get out the vote activities among all kinds of groups that traditionally haven't done that.
Ted Simons: That sounds like something very basic and doubt middle of the road, but you also write that nonprofits can become the new venue for building political power. Explain, please.
Timothy Schmoltz: Yeah. I think a lot of people we know that people who are involved and being served by nonprofits, people who are poor, people with disabilities, people of color, aren't traditionally involved. Sometimes their participation in our democracy is 15, meaning voting and other kinds of civic activities, is 15-20% below the general population. So nonprofits have access to these by providing services. And the nonpartisan ways they -- it is legal for -- to encouraging people to register to vote, to be come -- to become informed voters and then vote. That's what this project is about.
Ted Simons: I was going to ask, can and should nonprofits be more political, and how do you become more political and not find yourself falling on either side of the line?
Timothy Schmoltz: Well, the IRS rules are very clear about being nonpartisan. Nonprofits cannot endorse candidates, cannot be involved in partisan activities during an election. So, yes, if voting and voter registration and voter participation is political, then this is political. But it's nonpartisan political work, and it involves getting people out to vote, and participating in our democracy. This is a very Democratic, very nonpartisan activity. And they could be involved in ballot measures, like prop 204. A lot of nonprofits are involved in the prop 204 campaign. Those kinds of things.
Ted Simons: Involved in what way?
Timothy Schmoltz: Well, they're registering people to vote, they're encouraging people to consider the ballot measure. They're concerned with informing people about how to vote, about various kinds of things. Never telling people how to vote, never telling people endorsing candidates in those kinds of things.
Ted Simons: If you don't endorse a candidate and you are encouraging people to take a look at a particular proposition that requests a particular thing, is that not taking a side?
Timothy Schmoltz: Well, it's not taking a side because you're not telling people how to vote. You're basically saying, as any group can, be informed. Learn about hunger, homelessness, how it affects you. Learn how it affects your community. And make up your own mind. Nonpartisans have this role in our community to inform people; particularly these populations that are on the margins that are served by nonprofits, but traditionally don't participate. So this is a way for the nonprofit community to stay legal, but participate legitimately and legally, and in a nonpartisan way in our community.
Ted Simons: Do nonprofits consider themselves inherently political?
Timothy Schmoltz: No. Well, most nonprofits are -- the primary mission is service. Put on the symphony, have an art gallery, help seniors be independent. End homelessness. Most nonprofits have a primary mission. But that doesn't mean that they should not participate under the IRS rules in our democracy. And traditionally nonprofits have done that. It's just that this year, in Arizona, we with the alliance of nonprofits, the valley of the sun united way, the united way in Tucson, a variety of groups that just gather together and said, it's legal for us to do this. We need to encouraging people to participate in their democracy. This is -- because you're poor doesn't mean you shouldn't vote. Because you're a person of color doesn't mean you shouldn't vote. Because you're a person with a disability means that you should -- you should participate. And we know these kinds of groups traditionally are marginalized, and we need to encourage as much as we can.
Ted Simons: I know you write how nonprofits are -- keep a sense of community and help keep a sense of community. Can you keep a sense of community when you're out there poking maybe a couple of beehives?
Timothy Schmoltz: Well, again, we're attempting to say, and inform people to make up their own minds. I suppose if you're involved in issue oriented advocacy, you are going to stir up a beehive or two. But that's the nature of democracy. As long as our nonprofits are not partisan, they're not endorsing candidates and they're not doing things that violate their status, the rules are very clear that they can participate. Because you're in a nonprofit and you're served by a nonprofit doesn't mean you give up your citizenship. And all we're saying is, in this project, is participate. Play.
Ted Simons: We've got about 30 seconds left Y did you feel the need to come out with this? Why are you emphasizing this?
Timothy Schmoltz: I think what we saw was this was an election year, there's been a lot of impact on a lot of people over the last few years. There's a presidential election year, it gets a lot of publicity. This was an opportunity really to empower people who might not be empowered before.
Ted Simons: All right. Very good. Thanks for joining us. We appreciate it.
Timothy Schmoltz: Thank you.
Arizona Giving & Leading: Uniting Education and Business
- The Arizona Educational Foundation is launching the “UnitED” program to establish beneficial partnerships between public schools and businesses. Learn more about the program from Bobbie O’Boyle, Executive Director of the Arizona Educational Foundation, and Alicia Mandel, VP for Organization Effectiveness and Inclusion at the Apollo Group.
- Bobbie O’Boyle - Executive Director, Arizona Educational Foundation
- Alicia Mandel - VP, Organization Effectiveness and Inclusion at the Apollo Group
| Keywords: giving
Ted Simons: Tonight's focus on Arizona giving and leading looks at the Arizona educational foundation's launch of a program called "united" which attempts to unite education officials and business leaders for the benefit of public education and business concerns. Here to tell us more are Bobbie O'Boyle, executive director of the Arizona educational association, and Alicia Mandel, vice-president for an organization effectiveness and inclusion at the Apollo group. Good to have you here. Thanks for joining us.
Bobbie O’Boyle Thanks for having us.
Ted Simons: Is that what the united program is?
Bobbie O’Boyle: You've got it right. Exactly. It's a takeoff on the old principal for a day program the city of Phoenix ran for years, but what we want to do with it is extend it beyond that one day of shadowing, where a business partner shadows a principal for a day, and gets an idea of what a day in the life of a principal is like. What we want them to do is form a partnership that can last beyond that one visit and lead to benefits for the school.
Ted Simons: How can you make it last beyond one visit? Give us an example. You were involved as well, how does a business leader not only shadow, but get more of an idea of what goes on in public schools?
Alicia Mandel: I think what's really important is getting involved in the first place. When I first got involved with the program, I thought it was going to be the principal was going to say he need add donation from me, or money from my company. But what we really did was spent a lot of time working together, over the course of the whole year, to figure out how we can best partner for the long term. And we did tons of stuff together. We're still really in touch.
Ted Simons: Is it a win-win situation, where both the business leader and the education leader, they both get something out of this?
Alicia Mandel: You know, Apollo group is about education. We're an education company. We're the leading employer of -- in Arizona. And we care about our community, and we care about public education. I got lucky, my company allowed me to go and spend the day and the year, and continue to stay involved with my organization. It's a great thing for companies to do.
Ted Simons: How does it exactly work? There's got to be mentoring, coaching, but other than shadowing, other than looking at them and going, I had no idea, maybe more informational than anything else, how do the benefits come out?
Bobbie O’Boyle: The benefits are determined by the needs of a school, and the resources that the business partner can bring to the table. It doesn't have to be cash. That's not what schools are looking for necessarily. Sometimes the relationships can develop in the form of a mentor-mentee relationship, or possibly a playground structure, or a support for an after-school program, support employees of the corporation going in and reading to the children on a regular basis, whether it be monthly, weekly, quarterly. But there are just myriad ways businesses can get involved in schools and really become aware of what's going on, rather than depending just on news -- press release and so forth.
Ted Simons: It sounds like the idea has helped business leaders understand the nature of public education and vice versa. What do they need to know?
Bobbie O’Boyle: I think they need to just have a better understanding and appreciation for what educators are faced with on a daily basis. And I also think it's important for them to get in and see the successes that are happening in the schools every day. We often hear the negative things in the media about education. And we hear about the budget cuts, and everything else. But the fact is, those kids are going to walk through that school door every day, and want to know what their spelling word list is, or what they're going to have for lunch, what they're going to learn in history class. And I think the business folks need to appreciate that educators are doing everything they can and doing an excellent job meeting the needs of their students.
Ted Simons: What do business leaders need to know, accenting what was said, what information are they not getting, and education leaders, what do they need to know about business and business concerns.
Alicia Mandel: One of the things that was so striking to me is at the beginning of this program we spent a half day learning about how the education system in Arizona gets funded. And I was shocked. I had no idea. I think people spend a lot of time reading the newspaper and complaining about the public education system. And they have no idea about the heroes that are at the school every day. The principals, the teachers, the superintendents, that are doing -- they're pulling off miracles every day without having the money, and so people can complain a lot, but they really need to go out and get involved. What companies can do is help to support that. And help to promote it. It's only going to make for a better community.
Ted Simons: Are you seeing light bulbs go off over business leaders' heads once they follow these people around?
Alicia Mandel: Absolutely.
Bobbie O’Boyle: Absolutely. You betcha. That hands-on approach, being in the classrooms, in the office, at the school, and seeing what's going on helps them to realize what the challenges are.
Ted Simons: Direct benefit to the student. People are watching right now, they're saying, this is fine and dandy, what about my kid? How are they helped?
Bobbie O’Boyle: If they have a business partner like Apollo, like Alicia at Apollo group, or we have the musical instrument museum, for example, in partnership with the Arizona school for the arts. Every partnership we hope will benefit the children at the school where the business happens to have that partnership. And we, the Arizona educational foundation, will do everything that we can to make sure that that partnership is successful, beneficial, and sustainable.
Ted Simons: And last question, how long after commitment are we talking about here in terms of this partnership?
Alicia Mandel: You know, it's really on your own terms. I created a great partnership with Mario, who is the principal where I partnered, and we met when our time allowed. Probably monthly, maybe quarterly. But I brought other resources from Apollo group in with me to supplement. So we had a communications club. We had mentoring program that started up. I've had them come and meet with the dean of the school of education. So we've really expanded. Not just on me, but it's gotten a life of its own inside of Apollo group.
Ted Simons: It sounds encouraging. Thank you both for joining us and telling us more about it. We appreciate it.
Both: Thanks for having us.
How to Fix a Broken Border
- Former Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard talks about his plan for securing the Arizona-Mexico border that’s being released as a three-part series by ASU’s Morrison Institute for Public Policy.
- Terry Goddard - Former Arizona Attorney General
| Keywords: fix
Ted Simons: Good evening, and welcome to "Arizona Horizon." I'm Ted Simons.
Ted Simons: "How To Fix a Broken Border" is a three-part series originally published by the immigration policy center. It was written by former Arizona attorney general Terry Goddard, who updated the series for ASU's Morrison institute of public policy. Here to talk about the report is former state attorney general Terry Goddard. Good to see you again. Thanks for joining us.
Terry Goddard: Pleasure to be here.
Ted Simons: Let's set some parameters. Is the border broken?
Terry Goddard: Everybody seems to say so. I think we can start with the premise that there are serious problems at the border. What is a broken border? Nobody has defined the term. So it's impossible to say. What constitutes success on the boarder? Nobody has defined that either. Once again it's impossible to say when you're winning or losing. As a law enforcement officer, I spent eight years as Arizona's attorney general, sort of trying to do something about the crime problems on the border. And I think that's what most people are worried about. And found it very frustrating there was a lot of talk, a lot of bombbast and all of the basic common sense law enforcement issues that I was trained to observe, especially against organized crime, were not being followed. So you really wonder, you've got no definition of what success is, and there doesn't seem to be the very basic crime fighting programs being put in place.
Ted Simons: There are three recommendations, but before we do, that the idea of building a wall at the border. The idea of allowing local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law, and state law. The idea that no reform should be considered until the border is quote unquote secure. Do these ideas make sense?
Terry Goddard: Well, they make sense to the advocates of a particular point of view. Do they make sense in terms of securing the border? No. If our objective, and I start from this perspective. There's a serious crime problem in Mexico. There's a serious crime problem in the United States. It relates to drugs. I believe we have -- we should have a fundamental organizing objective, which is to go after that problem. And that would have a tremendous impact on the criminal aspects of the border. If you really are against immigration, you talk about that you don't get the immigration reform until you fix the border. But you never bother to say what fixing the border or securing the border means. If you want to build a wall, all I can think about that is it's a massive public works project. Because that's 12th century technology, applied to a 22nd century opponent. The cartels are incredibly sophisticated. Frankly, the border itself, the physical border in most of the crimes that we're talking about is not actually the issue, because you have a cyberspace border which moves money, and that's the one that we need to protect.
Ted Simons: And those are the areas you concentrate O let's get to the first recommendation. Hit the cartel, the smuggling cartels, drug cartels in general, hit them where they live. What does that mean?
Terry Goddard: Mexico. We've almost tripled, certainly doubled the size of the border patrol. We have gone head over heels, this administration and the prior administration, in terms of putting more manpower on a defensive posture on the border. But usual never going to win a game just playing defense. And it seems to me that what has to be done, if we're going to be serious about going after a criminal threat, and the justice department almost eight years ago said that the drug cartels, mostly organized in Mexico, are the most serious organized crime threat in the world. OK. That means their organization, they're a leadership -- their leadership is across the border. What we have done in effect by not partnering with Mexican law enforcement, to the degree I think we could and should, is to give them a free pass. They have security in Mexico. The ironic part is many put their families in the United States and protect them from the violence in Mexico and we don't do anything about that either. Somebody is missing the big picture.
Ted Simons: So dismantle the criminal organizations, try to get them at their source, where they live. How do you get them where it hurts?
Terry Goddard: That's their pocketbook. And this is not rocket science. This is not anything new in criminology. Organized crime lives through the pocketbook. People are not serving the cartels in Mexico because they love the work. They're not religious fanatics. They're not interested in terror. They're interested in making money. And as long as they can make money, they are going to be doing the most effective job they possibly can to continue that profit center. We go after one of their particular areas, a particular type of drug, they'll switch to another one. We go after one part of the border where they're coming across, they'll go somewhere else. They are very flexible. And I think that's what the U.S. response has not been flexible, because we're playing red rover. We're joining arms on the border and instead of going into an offensive effort with intelligence, and wire taps, and a variety of law enforcement technologies that follow the criminals wherever they are, and that means we've got to cooperate with Mexico and they with us, I don't believe we're ever going to win this battle.
Ted Simons: Which brings us to your third recommendation, follow the money. Give us an example. Explain that for us.
Terry Goddard: Well, this is a border that's awash with cash. Just taking the issue I pursued and we used our authority in Arizona to go after the wire grams. The money grams that paid for human smuggling. When we started this effort, almost $600 million was being wired into Arizona. When we finished, almost nothing, $3 million. I can't say the whole 600 was criminal proceeds, the fact it's not there anymore means there's a good chance most of it was. So that's how they paid for most of the human smuggling in the United States. But there's probably, and the estimates are way all over the place, at least $20 billion in drug proceeds goes back into Mexico. It could be as high as $50 billion every year. As long as that's happening, they've got the money to buy the most advanced technology, they've got the money to hire the best troops, they've got the money to do just about anything they want to try to avoid our border enforcement.
Ted Simons: How do you keep that from happening?
Terry Goddard: You start with the department of treasury. We've got three -- two department agencies, three involved with the border, in my opinion, intensely and daily. Justice, with the DEA and homeland security, with ICE and border patrol, are doing a tough job. And they're doing it I think as best they can. Nothing is perfect, but they are really doing the defensive effort. But ultimately they've got to stop the money. It's not in their jurisdiction to do that. It's department of treasury. And we know every day in fact "The New York Times" this weekend talked about, well, they're looking at money laundering bite major banks. That seems like a delayed reaction. The major banks literally have been moving billions of dollars across the border without following the regulations they're supposed to. And that profits the cartels.
Ted Simons: Which brings me to the last question, hit the cartel where it hurts, disrupt smuggling and follow the money. Can you do all of those things if financial institutions in particular aren't along for the ride?
Terry Goddard: Well, I think you have to do all of them. Bottom line, you look at the sophisticated organization and do what you did to the Mafia. Go after the top players and use any legal excuse or possibility to do that. The second item is the money. And as long as the money is flowing with such abundance, everything else is going to be far more difficult. And so I'm -- I believe the number one thing we failed to do to secure our border in Arizona and throughout the southwestern United States is to do an adequate job of A, enforcing the laws we have now on the books against money laundering, because it's happening, it's still happening in the wire transfer area, it's happening in legitimate -- the quasi legitimate trade in the border. And what I know and what is an abomination is that you've got one item that's called stored value instruments, they look like credit cards, but they have a little chip, and it means you can put money in and take money out, like a little bank account. And if you or I go across the border, we've got to declare everything over $10,000. But if one much those things in my wallet is a stored value instrument and it's got a million dollars on it, I don't have -- under the rules I don't have to say anything about that. Congress has known about it for years. Gabby Giffords, one of our Congress representatives, tried to get it fixed. Unfortunately she was shot and is not pushing that bill anymore. And nobody picked it up. So there's some huge loopholes and they haven't been closed.
Ted Simons: We have to stop it there. It's good to see you again.
Terry Goddard: Pleasure to be here.