AZ school district could walk back plan to build Mormon seminary at high school
A rural Arizona school board could revisit a decision to build a seminary for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on a high school campus after frustration and anger from parents boiled over at a listening session.
That session on April 16 culminated in Vail School District Superintendent John Carruth indicating he would take the community's concerns to the district's board, which could decide to "walk it back."
"As soon as we heard that there was concern, we opened up to the public and said, 'Hey, come in, tell us what your concerns are,'" Carruth told The Arizona Republic. "And if we need to walk a decision back, we'll walk a decision back."
About 60 parents and residents filled in a room at the Vail School District office to voice their concerns about a contract between the district and the church, widely known as the Mormon church. The contract would permit the construction of a 1,300-square-foot seminary on the campus of Cienega High School in Vail, a community southeast of Tucson.
The building would be owned and operated by the district as a community room space, but the district entered into a 10-year lease agreement with the church, and there would be an option to extend for another 9.5 years. Outside of the lease agreement giving the church use between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. on weekdays, the facility could be used for other school programs or community needs, according to district documents. The church would also pay the district a monthly fee for rental, utility, and maintenance costs.
Retired teachers, residents and parents of students and former students said they felt enraged, frustrated and disenfranchised with how the agreement with the church was carried out.
Carruth told them that while the agreement with the church has been signed, the district is "functionally in a paused state as far as moving forward with design or construction or any of the other things."
Most people who spoke at the meeting said they were concerned about the separation of church and state in public schools.
Retired teacher and librarian Diana Roché was one of those people.
'I'm not against the church at all; it has nothing to do with that. It's this idea that it should not be on a school campus during school instruction time," she said.
Others agreed with Roché and said they would prefer if the religious instruction were offered outside of school hours.
Roché also pointed to a letter from the district's legal advisers, DeConcini McDonald Yetwein & Lacy. The letter was a response to a secular group's request for the district to cease and desist from moving forward with the agreement. It said that while the building will be on district property, the location of the future building is "essentially a dirt lot that is separate from the school itself."
Attendees asked Carruth why the agreement was not brought before the public before the school board voted to execute the contract in March.
'If you had had little breakout sessions about this little problem, before this all erupted, we feel like 13 years of this has been planned behind our backs, and now it's being snuck,' Roché said, adding she felt deceived.
Carruth, who became superintendent in 2020, said that while informal conversations were happening on and off for 13 years, there was no definitive plan to move forward with the plan until seven or eight months ago. Once the proposal moved forward, it was placed on the agenda for discussion at public meetings posted on the district's website.
Parent Geraldine Kleber said many in the community were not aware of the agreement until she posted about it on Facebook.
'That's the only way these people found out about it because it was posted on Facebook that this meeting occurred and that it's approved,' Kleber said.
Vail residents asked Carruth how he could be sure no public funds would be used in any way, direct or indirect, for the building.
He said the building's rent payments would cover all maintenance and operational costs.
Additionally, Carruth pointed to the letter from the DeConcini law firm, which says the church would contribute about $500,000 to construct the building. Once constructed, it would pay $500 per month for utilities and maintenance, and $100 per month for rent.
Others asked about how the district would pay to fight this issue if it were to land in court, and if public funds would be used then.
Although Carruth said the case has not gotten to that point, he pointed out that the district has prepaid legal services through the district's insurance group.
Carruth assured the public that the agreement followed state and federal law.
"I will simply say that we have received legal guidance and we've been engaged with a team of lawyers who've looked over this," Carruth said. "When this first came to our attention, the first question was: 'Is it legal ... is it a legal framework?' ... The answer is yes ... They laid out the framework for what that is, assured us."
The superintendent reiterated that students who want to attend the seminary can do so during their free period, but they will not be excused from their normal school schedule.
He also said the vetting of seminary staff will be the responsibility of the church, not the school district, a detail that raised concerns among attendees about the safety of students on campus.
Carruth indicated the church is 'very concerned and highly paying attention to' the adults overseeing the seminary.
Throughout the almost three-hour meeting, Carruth apologized to the public for how the agreement between the district and the LDS was pursued and executed. He said that he underestimated the public's concern.
He said he will bring back the concerns to the board, which is also engaging with the church and the district's legal advisers about how to proceed.
Carruth told The Republic people at the meeting raised concerns about "deception and malice," but he insisted the decision to bring the proposal forward was made with good intentions.
"I can tell you from the bottom of my heart that is not the reason that we're here,' Carruth said. 'We entered into this … with the intent to provide something beneficial to the district and receive a free public good, and something that can provide a safer place for a group of young people to go.'
Despite the large number of people who showed up to oppose the lease agreement, he said a significant number of people support the proposal. But he said those people did not want to attend the meeting, knowing it might create some concerns and tension.
Reach the reporter at sarah.lapidus@gannett.com. The Republic's coverage of southern Arizona is funded, in part, with a grant from Report for America. Support Arizona news coverage with a tax-deductible donation at supportjournalism.azcentral.com.
This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Vail School District may walk back plan for Mormon seminary at school
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
I'll never forget what Walter Cronkite told me
One time, I was interviewing this old guy and he went on and on about how important good journalism is to democracy. You could tell he really believed it. That old guy's name was Walter Cronkite. I interviewed him in his office several years ago, and his words and passion for good journalism have never been more important or rung so true. And The Arizona Republic provides plenty of it. Whether it's local news and sports, expert looks at the dining scene, tough coverage of politics or informed opinions about what's going on in the Valley and the world, The Republic and offer all this in addition to, if I might twist your arm a bit, my media criticism and commentary and movie and TV reviews. And if there is one thing that's true about providing such thorough coverage of the place where we live and beyond, it's this — it ain't free. That's where you come in. A subscription to The Republic helps support our work, which I frequently argue is important. Our coverage of major stories, such as the Gilbert Goons and local favorites like high school sports, is unparalleled. I read it, and you should, too. Not to oversimplify things, but reading our coverage is how I know what's going on in the community I live in. And that's important. For my part, I write about how the media covers (or doesn't) the kind of attacks on democracy Cronkite warned against, alongside reviews of films (horror movies are a particular favorite) and TV shows (I love TV), and the occasional food essay. Recently, I wrote about criticism of the book 'Original Sin,' and how some people think it's something that shouldn't exist. I disagree. You can write about almost anything, and we do. If you don't like one story, move on — you'll likely enjoy the next one. Not only can we cover more than one thing, but we have to. It's what we do. And we do it well. We'd love for you to be a part of it. After all, you don't want to disappoint Walter Cronkite. Special offer: If you like our work, please consider becoming a subscriber. Save on a new subscription today. Reach Goodykoontz at Facebook: Media commentary with a side of snark? Sign up for The Watchlist newsletter with Bill Goodykoontz. This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Republic columnist: My mission is to uncover the truth
The Hill
20 hours ago
- The Hill
Arizona Democrats fear infighting will hurt them in midterms
Democratic frustrations are growing in Arizona amid a feud within the state party, triggering concerns about the ramifications for 2026 and beyond. Only months into his tenure as Arizona Democratic Party chair, members of the party have voiced exasperation with Robert E. Branscomb II for various actions, including airing grievances with Democratic elected officials publicly; his handling of the party budget and fundraising; and for suspending another party official. While Branscomb has urged Arizona Democrats to have patience and said his job has a steep learning curve, it's done little to quell discontent within the party: Dozens of Arizona Democratic Party state committee members have signed onto a petition calling for a special meeting to consider removing Branscomb. Members are already bracing for a chaotic state committee meeting on Saturday and some are concerned the party's fundraising and coordinated campaign could be impacted ahead of the 2026 elections if the dispute doesn't resolve itself soon. 'We run out of money, then what do we do?' said one state committee member who, like others interviewed in this piece, requested anonymity to speak candidly. 'Who's going to run … the party if there's no money?' Patience is wearing thin among Arizona Democrats since Branscomb was elected chair in January. Months into his term, he roiled the party after accusing the state's two Democratic senators of intimidating him following his selection of a new executive director for the party, prompting both senators in addition to Gov. Katie Hobbs (D), Attorney General Kris Mayes (D) and Secretary of State Adrian Fontes (D) to issue a statement refuting Branscomb's letter to state committee members and saying that Branscomb had lost their trust. More recently, he suspended first vice chair Kim Khoury, with an investigation being launched 'into potential violations of the ADP Code of Conduct and governing procedures,' according to The Arizona Republic, which obtained a copy of the letter. Democrats have also voiced concern over the state party's fundraising after its treasurer recently estimated that, at the current rate, the party would run out of money by the end of the year. One longtime state committee person believed there would be money coming into the state for elections and congressional races, but noted that 'it's not going to be through the state party at this point as long as he's involved.' In an interview with the Arizona Republic last month, the state party chair said that Democrats needed to give him some time to get adjusted to the role and that they needed to have patience. While he's acknowledged there are things he could have done differently as chair, he's suggested the circumstances he entered into when he took over as chair didn't place him in a strong position to lead the party. The Hill contacted Branscomb on Thursday, and he indicated he was not immediately available for an interview. He did not responded to additional requests for comment. While some members of the party are sympathetic to the fact that helming a state party can be challenging, they also say Branscomb did himself no favors publishing his letter invoking the two senators. 'I wouldn't disagree with that,' the longtime state committee member said when asked about Branscomb's comments to the Arizona Republic, 'because I know it's a hard job, and I know there's a learning curve, and I know he's new to the job.' 'The problem is that email basically makes it almost impossible to recover from.' State party feuding is not new, of course. Former Arizona GOP chair Jeff DeWit left his position early last year following a leaked conversation between him and Kari Lake, in which DeWit sought to dissuade the former local news anchor from running for Arizona Senate. In Nevada in 2023, Democrats ousted their chair, Judith Whitmer, whose election prompted a number of officials to exit the state party. And while some members see intraparty conflict as unhelpful and an annoyance, they argue that their candidates, including all three Democratic statewide elected officials, will have the resources needed to be successful and competitive next year. Multiple avenues would be available to them, particularly county parties, to help with fundraising. 'I do think it will be more of a temporary annoyance than something that is actually going to have any sort of electoral impact,' one party insider said, noting that the conflict itself doesn't resolve around an ideological split. But other Arizona Democrats — even those who voted for Branscomb in January — are concerned that the dragged-out rift could negatively impact the party's fundraising and organizational efforts. 'I don't think we'll have an effective coordinated campaign,' said Steven Jackson, the Legislative District 8 chairman who has led circulation of the petition calling for the special meeting to consider removing Branscomb. Jackson supported Branscomb during the January chair election. 'I think it would affect the [Arizona Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee], which will affect legislative races. You know, we've got an attorney general who [won] by 250 votes last time, and a governor's race that's going to be tough,' Jackson added, referring to Mayes's race against Rep. Abe Hamadeh (R-Ariz.) in 2022, which she won by 280 votes. Despite members' frustrations with Branscomb, removing him as chair is still a tall task: Two-thirds of the entire state committee need to vote for his removal in order for it to move forward. Some members question whether there's enough frustrated Democrats to meet that threshold. 'It's hard to gauge because it is a high threshold, right?' the first state committee member said. 'But the more he stays on, the more he loses trust and confidence.'
Washington Post
2 days ago
- Washington Post
The most quintessential American TV show is ‘Sister Wives'
One benefit of being a columnist is that every couple of years I get to subject all of you to a close analysis of the reality show 'Sister Wives,' and it turns out today is that day. What is 'Sister Wives?' It is a long-running TLC series about a family of fundamentalist Mormon polygamists who live in Utah, then Nevada, then Arizona and then eventually scatter as the clan breaks up. It's never-ending and dramatic and boring, and the faithful among us now just want to know whether erstwhile second wife Janelle, who moved to North Carolina, will ever open her unpronounceable flower farm (TAY-da? TIE-da? Tie-AY-da? Get it together, guys). Those of you have never seen the show: We know, you wouldn't be caught dead tuning in to this dumpster fire, you have better things to do, etc. etc. Congratulations on your brain cells. Now please leave us in peace to discuss a show, which wraps up its 19th season on Sunday, that has over the years become one of my lodestars for interpreting relationships and America. As a quick refresher: This show first aired in 2010, piggybacking off the popularity of 'Big Love,' an HBO drama about a fictional modern polygamous family, which starred Bill Paxton and which explored what it looked like to live a 19th century religion in a 21st century reality. 'Sister Wives' was that but less premium-cable. It introduced the country to Joseph Smith birthday celebrations, bulk meal prep (18 children!!) and the Utah accent, which pronounces 'real' and 'deal' as 'rill' and 'dill.' As a quicker refresher: The Brown family now hates each other. Kody Brown started off with four wives but now has just one as Christine, Janelle and Meri all spent the previous three seasons lining up to divorce him. The sad patriarch lives in Flagstaff with his single remaining spouse, Robyn, who began the series run as the hot new girlfriend but who now looks so perpetually low-energy that one podcaster I follow speculates that the couple's favorite spicy role-playing game involves pretending to be in hospice. The bulk of this most recent season was spent figuring out what to do about Coyote Pass, the overpriced land on which the family once intended to build a compound before everything went to hell. So now Christine has remarried, Meri is running a B&B back in Utah, Janelle has moved eastward with her grandbabies and her farm dreams, but all of them keep having to trudge back to Flagstaff to bicker with one another about who owes what to whom. As you might imagine, these are not really conversations about money. Why couldn't Kody just admit that he once he met Robyn, he started ignoring his other wives? Why couldn't Meri admit that her mid-series catfishing incident was an emotional affair? Did the family ever really function or was it just held together by a sticky paste of tuna casseroles and scripture? Here is Kody, once an earnest and good-natured lunkhead, gradually getting redpilled by the manosphere. And here is Meri, whose self-improvement journey dumped her at the alter of Brené Brown and Mel Robbins (this woman is always doing the work). And here is Christine, an irritating Disney Adult cheerfully rolling with her gay daughter's wedding, and here is Janelle, donating to the presidential campaign of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. At one point all the wives are involved in multilevel marketing schemes; at one point everyone's trying therapy. I'm telling you, the answer to every political pollster's question of the Trump era — how will the residents of flyover states deal with covid, with vaccines, with transgender issues, with health insurance, with poor retirement savings — is explored in one 'Sister Wives' episode or another. It's got every possible archetype. It's the most American show. There are podcasters who make their entire livings analyzing 'Sister Wives.' There is an honest-to-God communications professor who uses 'Sister Wives' as a weekly opportunity to teach his listeners about communication theory. Tourists travel to Flagstaff and take pictures of themselves at Salsa Brava or Fat Olives, restaurants that appear on the show, and, to be clear, all of these people are much crazier than I am. The biggest question of all at this point is: Why are any of us still here? 'Sister Wives' was marketed as an exploration of how one man could manage four wives, and the ultimate answer is, he couldn't. The original premise no longer exists. We're at the 'Tell All' point of the season now, a multi-part saga in which cast members sit down and dissect whatever we all saw on camera this season. The host, Sukanya Krishnan, does her best, but Robyn compares the experience to a root canal. Reading between the lines, the only reason any of them are here is because the show is now their main source of income. Kody and Robyn are constantly adding to their collection of horse-themed jewelry and art, and to earn their paychecks, the job description is self-reflection. And through that reflection, viewers get a master class on the mechanics of reality television. These five adults managed to put on a happy facade for a really long time. But since the cameras kept rolling, eventually the facade melted. Turns out they spent a lot of the early seasons lying to us and to themselves. Meri and Janelle didn't just have a complicated relationship, they could barely stand to be in the same room as one another. Christine wasn't just going through a rough patch with Kody, she was actively fantasizing about leaving for years. Midway through the season, a tragedy struck, which is so unspeakable that I worry how to even bring it up in this snarky column: One of Kody and Janelle's sons dies by suicide. Garrison had struggled with alcohol for a long time, we are told — something else we didn't see on screen — which had been brought on by the isolation of covid. And viewers, who are human, couldn't help but wonder about the other contributing factors. Was his fractured family to blame? Were we, the audience members who kept tuning in to watch the injuries? I couldn't imagine the show would continue after that event, and yet, there we were the next Sunday, watching grief-stricken parents trying to make sense of the most horrible event that could ever befall a parent and doing it while wearing microphones. We were told that Garrison loved cats. That a good way to honor his memory would be a donation to the Humane Society. I made a donation and wondered if it was time to permanently say goodbye to the Brown family. As for why I, and so many others, hung in for so long — my personal answer is that I wanted to see if they could put it all back together. I'm not asking whether they can all get married again, because they won't. Rather, I'm wondering what it looks like when everything has burned to the ground, but the cameras keep showing up, so you do too, trying to figure out this mess of your life and how it got this way. In the most recent episode, Krishnan kept prodding Janelle on whether she could be friends with Kody and Robyn again. After politely demurring several times, Janelle finally came out with it. 'I just don't like them,' she said. It was weird, frankly, for Krishnan to press the issue. Janelle left Kody, so why should she be expected to pal around with him and his remaining wife? But I got why Krishnan wouldn't let it go. Because this is the most American show on television. Because we all have to understand our past before we map the future. Because these are people who once vowed to spend their whole lives in a united state, and even if they sell Coyote Pass, they're still going to be bound by joy, grief, struggle, memories. Because every one of us living out this broken current reality of America is also trying to figure out whether an RFK Jr. supporter can sit down with a manosphere resident and a chipper Disney princess and an MLM high-seller and try to remember what we have in common. Try to envision what it could look like if we could ever put it back together. Try to remember that a family is still a family and a country is still a country no matter how much you hate each other, so you just have to grit your teeth and try again next season.
