Proposition 123 – Boon or Boondoggle?

As a refresher, let’s start with the Enabling Act of 1910 that created the State of Arizona. Under that act, Congress transferred to the future state several million acres of land the income only from which was to be used for “COMMON schools”. Now in 1910 a common school across the United States was grades 1 thru 6. Well, today, what is a COMMON SCHOOL IN ARIZONA? Well, that one is easy. I refer you to Arizona Revised Statute, Title 15, section 901-A-3-(a) which reads “Grades one through eight”.

The acceptance of the Enabling Act, its provisions and statehood are set forth in the Arizona Constitution, Article 10. Section 1. It is interesting to note that the State Legislature and the voters in approving that Section of the Constitution provided that the lands so accepted were to be “- – held in Trust to be disposed of in whole or in part, only in manner as in the said Enabling Act and this Constitution. – – – The natural products and money proceeds of any of said lands shall be subject to the same trust as the lands producing the same.” Now, Under Prop 123 the “State” by the act of its Legislature and the Voters were going to “breach” the provisions of The Enabling Act and the above provisions of the State Constitution.

Let’s now look at Article10, Section 7-B which provides “no monies shall ever be taken from one permanent fund for deposit in any other, or for any object other than the for which the land producing the same was granted or confirmed”. So, the question that arises was the monies taken from the Trust pursuant to Proposition 123 used only to support “COMMON SCHOOLS or was it also used to support grades 9-12 which are not common schools by statute? If so, that violates not only the Enabling Act, but also the State Constitution Title 10 Section B. That Section goes on to provide in Section D as follows —The legislature shall establish a Board of Investment to serve as Trustees of the permanent funds. The board Shall provide for the management of the assets of the funds consistent with the following conditions: They then proceed to tell the Board of Investment how much money they will distribute from the funds each year. That of course violates not only the Enabling Act, but also the Constitution. That would also seem to be a violation of Trust law which provides that the Trustee is bound to administer the Trust pursuant to the terms set forth therein.

The terms of distribution as mandated by the Legislature violates the terms of the Enabling act which the Legislature has no authority to amend as they are neither the Trustor, the Trustee or the beneficiary of the Trust. In this case to manage the property and to distribute ONLY the income produced thereby for the use of Common Schools. Again, please note that the Trust under the terms of the Enabling Act has no termination date and is thus a PERPETUAL TRUST. That of course means it was created for the benefit of school children in Common Schools for ever into the future. So, a child TO BE BORN IN 2500 has an expectancy in the terms the Trust being carried out as set forth in The Enabling Act, the very document creating the Trust. That was violated by Proposition 123.

When Proposition 123 was passed an individual, Michael Pierce, filed an action, No. CV-16-01538-PHX-NVW, challenging the validity of the Proposition. The decision of the Trial Judge in that case was the Proposition was invalid. That decision of the Court was appealed to of all places the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The decision of that August Court was not that the decision of the Trial Court was in error, but that the Plaintiff, Michael Pierce, had no standing to bring the Action because there was “no concrete injury to him personally”. Something that neither the Trial Court nor the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals appear to have considered is that this was a Perpetual Trust with UNBORN AND UN-ASCERTAINED beneficiaries. SO, WHO REPRESENTED THE INTEREST OF THESE UNBORN AND UN-ASCERTAINED beneficiaries throughout all these proceedings, including the presentation and passage of Prop 123? The answer is no one represented them. That would have required a court of law to appoint an individual, usually designated as a GUARDIAN-AD-LITEM.

In other words, a competent adult with the duty to actively participate in all phases of the proceedings. The Office of the Governor did not do that and the Teachers Union looking for a raise in pay certainly did not want any opposition to their position. Remember RED FOR ED? They were all over the state attending meetings of every organization that might pose opposition. to Prop 123. To put the question of teacher salaries in perspective, if you break state employees down in to classes and categories guess which category or class receives the highest average salary. If you answer “teachers”, you are right.

I have no problem with teachers receiving a pay increase. The problem is from what source that increase is to be paid. Stealing (my word) from the Public Schools Trust should not be the source. The burden should fall upon the tax payers. When all the Public Common Schools Trust lands are sold and the money spent, there will be no offset on those taxes. PROPOSITION  123 has expired. Let us not compound the problems by extending its life for another 10 years. Let us bite the bullet and have the legislature impose an additional tax or find another way to cover this shortfall. OUR CURRENT AND FUTURE COMMON SCHOOL STUDENTS DESERVE OUR ASSUMING THIS BURDEN AND PROVIDING THE NECESSARY FUNDS TO SUPPORT THE COMMON SCHOOLS.

VOTE NO ON ANY PROPOSED EXTENSION OF PROPOSITION 123 BY WHAT EVER NAME.