Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-EZ.
Information about Schedule A (Form 990 or 990-EZ) and its instructions is at www.irs.gov/form990.
| (i)Name of supported organization | (ii) EIN | (iii) Type of organization (described on lines 1- 9 above or IRC section (see instructions)) | (iv) Is the organization listed in your governing document? | (v) Amount of monetary support (see instructions) | (vi) Amount of other support (see instructions) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | |||||
| Total | ||||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2010 | (b) 2011 | (c) 2012 | (d) 2013 | (e) 2014 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grants.") .... | 3,117,362 | 2,679,324 | 3,753,262 | 4,196,797 | 4,739,590 | 18,486,335 |
| 2 | Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf....... | ||||||
| 3 | The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge.. | ||||||
| 4 | Total. Add lines 1 through 3 | 3,117,362 | 2,679,324 | 3,753,262 | 4,196,797 | 4,739,590 | 18,486,335 |
| 5 | The portion of total contributions by each person (other than a governmental unit or publicly supported organization) included on line 1 that exceeds 2% of the amount shown on line 11, column (f).. | 2,073,991 | |||||
| 6 | Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4. | 16,412,344 | |||||
Calendar year
(or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2010 | (b) 2011 | (c) 2012 | (d) 2013 | (e) 2014 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Amounts from line 4.. | 3,117,362 | 2,679,324 | 3,753,262 | 4,196,797 | 4,739,590 | 18,486,335 |
| 8 | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources... | 52,982 | 51,981 | 70,525 | 80,755 | 83,838 | 340,081 |
| 9 | Net income from unrelated business activities, whether or not the business is regularly carried on.. | ||||||
| 10 | Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part VI.).. | 717 | 3,169 | 7,168 | 7,339 | 12,729 | 31,122 |
| 11 | Total support Add lines 7 through 10. | 18,857,538 | |||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2010 | (b) 2011 | (c) 2012 | (d) 2013 | (e) 2014 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grants.") . | ||||||
| 2 | Gross receipts from admissions, merchandise sold or services performed, or facilities furnished in any activity that is related to the organization's tax-exempt purpose...... | ||||||
| 3 | Gross receipts from activities that are not an unrelated trade or business under section 513.. | ||||||
| 4 | Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf... | ||||||
| 5 | The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge.. | ||||||
| 6 | Total. Add lines 1 through 5. | ||||||
| 7a | Amounts included on lines 1, 2, and 3 received from disqualified persons... | ||||||
| b | Amounts included on lines 2 and 3 received from other than disqualified persons that exceed the greater of $5,000 or 1% of the amount on line 13 for the year. | ||||||
| c | Add lines 7a and 7b.. | ||||||
| 8 | Public support (Subtract line 7c from line 6.) | ||||||
Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) ![]() |
(a) 2010 | (b) 2011 | (c) 2012 | (d) 2013 | (e) 2014 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | Amounts from line 6... | ||||||
| 10a | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources.. | ||||||
| b | Unrelated business taxable income (less section 511 taxes) from businesses acquired after June 30, 1975. | ||||||
| c | Add lines 10a and 10b. | ||||||
| 11 | Net income from unrelated business activities not included in line 10b, whether or not the business is regularly carried on. | ||||||
| 12 | Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part VI.) .. | ||||||
| 13 | Total support. (Add lines 9, 10c, 11, and 12.).. | ||||||
| Section A - Adjusted Net Income | (A) Prior Year |
(B) Current Year (optional) |
||||
| 1 | Net short-term capital gain | 1 | ||||
| 2 | Recoveries of prior-year distributions | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Other gross income (see instructions) | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Add lines 1 through 3 | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Depreciation and depletion | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Portion of operating expenses paid or incurred for production or collection of gross income or for management, conservation, or maintenance of property held for production of income (see instructions) | 6 | ||||
| 7 | Other expenses (see instructions) | 7 | ||||
| 8 | Adjusted Net Income (subtract lines 5, 6 and 7 from line 4) | 8 | ||||
| Section B - Minimum Asset Amount | (A) Prior Year |
(B) Current Year (optional) |
||||
| 1 | Aggregate fair market value of all non-exempt-use assets (see instructions for short tax year or assets held for part of year): | 1 | ||||
| a | Average monthly value of securities | 1a | ||||
| b | Average monthly cash balances | 1b | ||||
| c | Fair market value of other non-exempt-use assets | 1c | ||||
| d | Total (add lines 1a, 1b, and 1c) | 1d | ||||
| e | Discount claimed for blockage or other factors (explain in detail in Part VI): | |||||
| 2 | Acquisition indebtedness applicable to non-exempt use assets | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Subtract line 2 from line 1d | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Cash deemed held for exempt use. Enter 1-1/2% of line 3 (for greater amount, see instructions). | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Net value of non-exempt-use assets (subtract line 4 from line 3) | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Multiply line 5 by .035 | 6 | ||||
| 7 | Recoveries of prior-year distributions | 7 | ||||
| 8 | Minimum Asset Amount (add line 7 to line 6) | 8 | ||||
| Section C - Distributable Amount | Current Year | |||||
| 1 | Adjusted net income for prior year (from Section A, line 8, Column A) | 1 | ||||
| 2 | Enter 85% of line 1 | 2 | ||||
| 3 | Minimum asset amount for prior year (from Section B, line 8, Column A) | 3 | ||||
| 4 | Enter greater of line 2 or line 3 | 4 | ||||
| 5 | Income tax imposed in prior year | 5 | ||||
| 6 | Distributable Amount. Subtract line 5 from line 4, unless subject to emergency temporary reduction (see instructions) | 6 | ||||
| 7 | Check here if the current year is the organization's first as a non-functionally-integrated Type III supporting organization (see instructions) | |||||
| Section D - Distributions | Current Year | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 Amounts paid to supported organizations to accomplish exempt purposes | ||
|
2
Amounts paid to perform activity that directly furthers exempt purposes of supported organizations, in excess of income from activity |
||
| 3 Administrative expenses paid to accomplish exempt purposes of supported organizations | ||
| 4 Amounts paid to acquire exempt-use assets | ||
| 5 Qualified set-aside amounts (prior IRS approval required) | ||
| 6 Other distributions (describe in Part VI). See instructions | ||
| 7Total annual distributions. Add lines 1 through 6. | ||
|
8
Distributions to attentive supported organizations to which the organization is responsive (provide details in Part VI). See instructions |
||
| 9 Distributable amount for 2014 from Section C, line 6 | ||
| 10 Line 8 amount divided by Line 9 amount | ||
| Section E - Distribution Allocations (see instructions) |
(i) Excess Distributions |
(ii) Underdistributions Pre-2014 |
(iii) Distributable Amount for 2014 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1
Distributable amount for 2014 from Section C, line 6 |
||||
|
2
Underdistributions, if any, for years prior to 2014 (reasonable cause required--see instructions) |
||||
| 3 Excess distributions carryover, if any, to 2014: | ||||
| a From 2009.......X | ||||
| b From 2010.......X | ||||
| c From 2011.......X | ||||
| d From 2012.......X | ||||
| e From 2013....... | ||||
| fTotal of lines 3a through e | ||||
| g Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| h Applied to 2014 distributable amount | ||||
|
i
Carryover from 2009 not applied (see instructions) |
||||
| j Remainder. Subtract lines 3g, 3h, and 3i from 3f. | ||||
| 4Distributions for 2014 from Section D, line 7: | ||||
| $ | ||||
| a Applied to underdistributions of prior years | ||||
| b Applied to 2014 distributable amount | ||||
| c Remainder. Subtract lines 4a and 4b from 4. | ||||
|
5
Remaining underdistributions for years prior to 2014, if any. Subtract lines 3g and 4a from line 2 (if amount greater than zero, see instructions) |
||||
|
6
Remaining underdistributions for 2014. Subtract lines 3h and 4b from line 1 (if amount greater than zero, see instructions) |
||||
|
7 Excess distributions carryover to 2015. Add lines 3j and 4c. |
||||
| 8 Breakdown of line 7: | ||||
| a From 2010.......X | ||||
| b From 2011.......X | ||||
| c From 2012.......X | ||||
| d From 2013....... | ||||
| e From 2014....... | ||||
| Facts And Circumstances Test |
|---|
| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|
| SCHEDULE A, PART II, LINE 10, EXPLANATION OF OTHER INCOME: | OTHER INCOME - 2010 AMOUNT: $ 717. 2011 AMOUNT: $ 3,169. 2012 AMOUNT: $ 7,168. 2013 AMOUNT: $ 7,339. 2014 AMOUNT: $ 12,729. |
| Software ID: | |
| Software Version: |
Attach to Form 990 or 990-EZ.
Information about Schedule O (Form 990 or 990-EZ) and its instructions is at| Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|
| FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4B: CASE UPDATE | BIGGS V. BREWER ON BEHALF OF 36 STATE LEGISLATORS, THE GOLDWATER INSTITUTE FILED A LAWSUIT CHALLENGING A NEW MEDICAID EXPANSION TAX, WHICH BECAME LAW WITHOUT APPROVAL OF A CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED SUPERMAJORITY, NULLIFYING THE VOTES OF THOSE LEGISLATORS WHO OPPOSED IT. THE STATE TRIAL COURT DISMISSED THE LAWSUIT WITHOUT REACHING THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE TAX WAS CONSTITUTIONAL, HOLDING THAT THE PLAINTIFFS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO SUE. THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS AND ARIZONA SUPREME COURT BOTH UNANIMOUSLY REVERSED THAT DECISION, HOLDING THAT A BARE MAJORITY OF LEGISLATORS CANNOT VOTE TO CIRCUMVENT A CONSTITUTIONAL SUPERMAJORITY REQUIREMENT AND THAT THE LEGISLATORS WHOSE VOTES WERE NULLIFIED COULD SUE. THE CASE IS NOW BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT TO DETERMINE THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE TAX WAS CONSTITUTIONAL. NO ATTORNEY'S FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED SO FAR (BUT THEY WERE REQUESTED IN THE COMPLAINT). BRUMFIELD V. DODD THE GOLDWATER INSTITUTE MOVED TO INTERVENE ON BEHALF OF LOUISIANA FAMILIES DEFENDING THE STATE'S VOUCHER PROGRAM AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE'S LEGAL CHALLENGE BROUGHT UNDER A 40-YEAR-OLD DESEGREGATION DECREE. AFTER THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT SUCCESSFULLY GRANTED INTERVENTION, THE INSTITUTE MOVED FOR AN IMMEDIATE DISMISSAL OF THE DOJ'S LEGAL CHALLENGE. THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE MOTION, AND THE INSTITUTE APPEALED THAT DENIAL BACK TO THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, ARGUING THAT THE DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER GRANTING JURISDICTION OVER THE PROGRAM SHOULD BE DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY. WE ARE AWAITING ORAL ARGUMENT IN THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. THE INSTITUTE DID NOT SEEK ATTORNEY'S FEES. CHEATHAM V. DICICCIO ON BEHALF OF TAXPAYERS, THE GOLDWATER INSTITUTE SUED THE CITY OF PHOENIX TO ENJOIN ITS CONTRACT WITH THE PHOENIX LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION. THE CONTRACT PERMITS SIX OFFICERS TO WORK FOR THE UNION FULL TIME WITHOUT LOSS OF PAY. IT PERMITS MANY OTHER OFFICERS TO DO SO ON A PART-TIME BASIS. THE INSTITUTE'S LAWSUIT SEEKS TO ENJOIN THIS PRACTICE ON THE THEORY THAT IT IS A GIFT TO A PRIVATE ASSOCIATION, IN VIOLATION OF THE ARIZONA CONSTITUTION'S GIFT CLAUSE. AFTER A TRIAL, THE STATE TRIAL COURT NOT ONLY ENJOINED THE UNION CONTRACT UNDER WHICH THE INSTITUTE SUED, BUT ALSO DIRECTED PHOENIX TO CORRECT ALL UNION CONTRACTS WITH SIMILAR PROVISIONS. WHILE THAT RULING IS BEING APPEALED, THE INSTITUTE ALSO ACHIEVED A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER ON A NEW PRACTICE THAT THE INSTITUTE ARGUED VIOLATES THE COURT ORDER. IN 2014, $339,000 IN ATTORNEY'S FEES WERE AWARDED BUT ARE CONTINGENT UPON THE INSTITUTE'S PREVAILING APPEAL. THE INSTITUTE IS AWAITING A DECISION FROM THE APPELLATE COURT. COONS V. LEW ON BEHALF OF AN ARIZONA TAXPAYER AND DOCTOR, THE GOLDWATER INSTITUTE FILED THIS LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT (PPACA) FOR EXCEEDING THE POWERS OF CONGRESS, VIOLATING INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, INTERFERING WITH THE AUTHORITY OF STATES, AND VIOLATING THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE BY SETTING UP A NEW BUREAUCRACY WITHOUT MEANINGFUL CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OR JUDICIAL REVIEW (THE INDEPENDENT PAYMENT ADVISORY BOARD). THE FEDERAL TRIAL COURT UPHELD IPAB'S POWERS BUT THE NINTH CIRCUIT VACATED THAT DECISION, HOLDING INSTEAD THAT THE CASE IS NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW BY COURTS BECAUSE IPAB HAS NOT YET ACTED. THE INSTITUTE FILED A CERT PETITION WITH THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IN LATE 2014, WHICH A FEW DOZEN CONGRESSMEN SUPPORTED WITH AN AMICUS BRIEF. THE SUPREME COURT DENIED THE CERT PETITION IN MARCH 2015. NO ATTORNEY'S FEES WERE AWARDED. ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL INSTITUTE V. ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS ON DECEMBER 7, 2011, THE ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL INSTITUTE, A NON-PROFIT RESEARCH AND PUBLIC POLICY ORGANIZATION, REQUESTED A SERIES OF E-MAILS TO AND FROM PROFESSORS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA AND OTHER UNIVERSITIES REQUESTING INFORMATION PERTAINING TO CLIMATE RESEARCH. THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA AND ITS PERSONNEL REFUSED TO PROVIDE SEVERAL REQUESTED RECORDS, CLAIMING THOSE RECORDS WERE EXEMPT UNDER ARIZONA'S PUBLIC RECORDS LAWS. EELI THEN FILED A SPECIAL ACTION AGAINST THE ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS TO COMPEL DISCLOSURE OF THE REQUESTED RECORDS. THE GOLDWATER INSTITUTE IS SERVING AS LOCAL COUNSEL IN THIS CASE. THE TRIAL COURT RECENTLY DENIED EELI'S REQUEST TO COMPEL PRODUCTION. EELI SOUGHT ATTORNEYS' FEES IN THIS ACTION. FAASSE V. SCOTT IN MAY 2014, THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE PASSED A COMPREHENSIVE EDUCATION BILL THAT INCLUDED THE PERSONAL LEARNING SCHOLARSHIP ACCOUNT (PLSA) PROGRAM. THE FLORIDA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION (FEA) SUED, CLAIMING THAT THE BILL VIOLATED THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION'S "SINGLE SUBJECT" RULE, WHICH REQUIRES THAT EVERY BILL PASSED CONTAIN ONLY ONE SUBJECT. THE INSTITUTE INTERVENED REPRESENTING SIX SPECIAL NEEDS FAMILIES ENROLLED IN THE PROGRAM. THE FLORIDA TRIAL COURT TWICE DISMISSED THE CASE, FINDING THAT THE FEA LACKED STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE PROGRAM IN COURT. THE FEA DID NOT APPEAL THE DISMISSAL. NO ATTORNEY'S FEES WERE SOUGHT. FLYTENOW, INC. V. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION THE GOLDWATER INSTITUTE FILED A LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF FLYTENOW, INC., CHALLENGING THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION'S (FAA'S) LETTER OF INTERPRETATION PROHIBITING PRIVATE PILOTS FROM SHARING PRO-RATED OPERATING EXPENSES OF FLIGHTS WITH PASSENGERS IN 2- OR 4-SEATER AIRPLANES UNDER FAA'S EXISTING EXPENSE-SHARING RULE. THE LAWSUIT SEEKS TO VINDICATE THE FREE SPEECH RIGHTS OF PILOTS AND PASSENGERS TO COMMUNICATE USING FLYTENOW'S WEBSITE, AND CHALLENGES THE LETTER OF INTERPRETATION FOR DISCRIMINATING AGAINST FLYTENOW AND PRIVATE PILOTS AS AN EQUAL PROTECTION VIOLATION. NO ATTORNEY'S FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED SO FAR, BUT THEY WERE REQUESTED IN THE PETITIONER'S OPENING BRIEF. HIRSHMAN V. CITY OF TUCSON SEVERAL ARIZONA CITIES HAVE CONTRACT BID PREFERENCES FOR LOCAL BUSINESSES, WHICH INFLATE THE PRICE OF SERVICES TO TAXPAYERS AND DISCRIMINATES AGAINST COMPETITORS. TUCSON'S IS ESPECIALLY EGREGIOUS. ON BEHALF OF THREE TUCSON TAXPAYERS, THE GOLDWATER INSTITUTE SUED THE CITY OF TUCSON, SEEKING TO END THE CITY'S DISCRIMINATORY BID PREFERENCE ORDINANCE THAT ALLOWS "LOCAL" SPECIAL INTERESTS TO RECEIVE SUBSIDIES ON CITY CONTRACTS. THE TRIAL COURT RULED TUCSON'S BID PREFERENCE ORDINANCE UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ALL GROUNDS AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. THE CITY HAS DECIDED NOT TO APPEAL THIS DECISION, AND THE INSTITUTE WAS AWARDED ATTORNEY'S FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $21,440.93. KORWIN V. COTTON THE GOLDWATER INSTITUTE FILED A LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF ALAN KORWIN AND HIS BUSINESS TRAINMEAZ, LLC, TO CHALLENGE THE PHOENIX PUBLIC TRANSIT DEPARTMENT'S DECISION TO REMOVE POSTERS AT 50 BUS SHELTERS ADVERTISING THE COMPANY'S WEBSITE. THE LAWSUIT SEEKS TO VINDICATE ALAN'S RIGHTS TO FREE SPEECH, DUE PROCESS, AND EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE ARIZONA AND UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONS. THE INSTITUTE WAS UNSUCCESSFUL IN THE TRIAL COURT, BUT WON ITS AS-APPLIED CHALLENGE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS. THE INSTITUTE WAS AWARDED ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $72,898.70. MCQUEEN V. DOUGLAS IN FEBRUARY 2014, BRAD MCQUEEN, A TUCSON ELEMENTARY PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHER, SPOKE OUT AGAINST THE NEW FEDERAL COMMON CORE STANDARDS BEING IMPLEMENTED IN ARIZONA. MCQUEEN HAD PARTICIPATED IN NUMEROUS COMMON CORE COMMITTEES AND OVER TIME GREW SKEPTICAL ABOUT THE STANDARDS AND BEGAN EXPRESSING HIS CONCERNS PUBLICLY. MEMBERS OF THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RETALIATED AGAINST MCQUEEN BY REMOVING HIM FROM ALL TEACHER COMMITTEES, WHETHER OR NOT THE COMMITTEES RELATED TO THE NEW COMMON CORE STANDARDS. ALONG THE WAY, THEY DISPARAGED MCQUEEN INSIDE THE DEPARTMENT. THE GOLDWATER INSTITUTE IS REPRESENTING MCQUEEN IN A LAWSUIT TO END THE RETALIATION AND MAKE SURE THAT TEACHERS' FREE SPEECH RIGHTS ARE PROTECTED. THE STATE DEFENDANTS REMOVED THE CASE TO FEDERAL COURT AND DISCOVERY IS ONGOING. NO ATTORNEY'S FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED SO FAR (BUT THEY WERE REQUESTED IN THE COMPLAINT). NIEHAUS V. HUPPENTHAL THE GOLDWATER INSTITUTE JOINED THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN DEFENDING AGAINST A LAWSUIT THAT WAS BROUGHT CHALLENGING ARIZONA'S EMPOWERMENT SCHOLARSHIP ACCOUNT PROGRAM. THIS PROGRAM ALLOWS PARENTS OF SPECIAL-NEEDS CHILDREN TO WITHDRAW THEIR CHILDREN FROM PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND USE A PORTION OF THE MONEY THAT WOULD HAVE GONE TO THE LOCAL DISTRICT TO DESIGN THEIR OWN EDUCATIONAL PLAN. THE INSTITUTE ARGUED THAT EVEN THOUGH PARENTS MAY SPEND THE MONEY ON PRIVATE AND RELIGIOUS SCHOOLING, THE GOVERNMENT IS SUFFICIENTLY INSULATED FROM THE DECISION SO AS TO NOT CONSTITUTE A GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE FOR RELIGIOUS SCHOOLING. THE STATE (AND THE INSTITUTE) PREVAILED IN THE TRIAL COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS. IN 2014, THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT REJECTED A PETITION FOR REVIEW, SO THE COURT OF APPEALS DECISION STANDS. NO ATTORNEY'S FEES WERE SOUGHT. PLEA V. DUPUY FOLLOWING THE CONTRACT CHANGES THAT ENDED PHOENIX'S PRACTICE OF PENSION SPIKING, ALLOWING RETIRING OFFICERS TO ARTIFICIALLY INFLATE THEIR RETIREMENT PAY BY CASHING IN UNUSED SICK LEAVE, VACATION TIME, AND UNIFORM ALLOWANCES, GOVERNMENT UNIONS SUED THE CITY, C |
| (CONTINUED) | SEDONA GRAND V. CITY OF SEDONA THE CITY OF SEDONA, ARIZONA, MADE IT A CRIME TO RENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR FEWER THAN 30 DAYS. SEDONA DEFINED "RENT" VERY BROADLY, SUBJECTING PROPERTY OWNERS TO PUNISHMENTS OF UP TO SIX MONTHS IN JAIL AND/OR A $2,500 FINE FOR ENGAGING IN A WIDE RANGE OF ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING PURCHASING A TIME SHARE, CONTRACTING FOR HOME IMPROVEMENTS, AND EVEN HIRING A BABYSITTER. THE CITY ATTEMPTED TO CIRCUMVENT PROPOSITION 207 - A VOTER-ENACTED PROTECTION THAT REQUIRES GOVERNMENT TO COMPENSATE PROPERTY OWNERS WHEN REGULATIONS DIMINISH PROPERTY RIGHTS AND DEVALUE PROPERTY - BY MASQUERADING A PROPERTY REGULATION AS A HEALTH AND SAFETY ORDINANCE, ARGUING IT IS EXEMPT FROM THE LAW. THANKS IN PART TO THE GOLDWATER INSTITUTE'S LEGAL WORK AS AMICUS, THE COURTS RULED THAT CITIES CAN'T AVOID PROP. 207 BY MERELY CLAIMING TO ADVANCE PUBLIC HEALTH WITHOUT OFFERING ANY EVIDENCE. THE CASE WAS SENT BACK TO THE TRIAL COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE CITY'S WEAK HEALTH AND SAFETY RATIONALE PASSES MUSTER. THE INSTITUTE PAIRED WITH LOCAL COUNSEL TO REPRESENT THE PROPERTY OWNERS, AND THE COURT ADOPTED THE INSTITUTE'S PROPOSED HEALTH-AND-SAFETY STANDARD, FINDING THAT SEDONA DID NOT ESTABLISH A PROPER HEALTH-AND-SAFETY NEXUS THAT WOULD ALLOW IT TO FALL WITHIN THAT EXEMPTION TO PROP. 207. NO ATTORNEY'S FEES WERE AWARDED. TOMBSTONE V. UNITED STATES THE GOLDWATER INSTITUTE IS REPRESENTING THE CITY OF TOMBSTONE IN A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE IN A FIGHT OVER WATER RIGHTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY TO ACCESS THOSE RIGHTS. CITING THE WILDERNESS ACT, THE FOREST SERVICE IS REFUSING TO ALLOW THE CITY TO REPAIR ITS WATERLINES TO SPRINGS IT HAS OWNED FOR NEARLY SEVENTY YEARS-AND WHICH DATE BACK TO THE 1880S. THIS REFUSAL IS THREATENING RESIDENTS, PRIVATE PROPERTY AND PUBLIC SAFETY WITH THE RISK OF A TOTAL LOSS OF FIRE PROTECTION BECAUSE THE SPRING WATER IS USED TO FILL RESERVES NEEDED FOR FIRE SUPPRESSION IN THE TOWN. ADDITIONALLY, THE REFUSAL THREATENS PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE BY POTENTIALLY FORCING RESIDENTS AND TOURISTS TO DRINK LOCAL WELL WATER THAT HAS HIGH LEVELS OF ARSENIC. THE INSTITUTE WAS UNSUCCESSFUL IN SEEKING A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST THE FOREST SERVICE TO ALLOW TOMBSTONE EMERGENCY ACCESS TO ITS SPRINGS. THE TRIAL COURT GRANTED THE FOREST SERVICE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DISMISSED THE CASE, HOLDING THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN ON TOMBSTONE'S CLAIMS. AN APPEAL IS POSSIBLE. NO ATTORNEY'S FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED SO FAR (BUT THEY WERE REQUESTED IN THE COMPLAINT). VONG V. AUNE THE ARIZONA BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY BANNED THE USE OF SPA FISH AS A THERAPY TO REMOVE DEAD SKIN FROM A PERSON'S FEET. THE GOLDWATER INSTITUTE SUED THE BOARD ON BEHALF OF THE ONLY KNOWN SALON IN ARIZONA USING THIS THERAPY, SEEKING TO ENFORCE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY AND PROTECT ENTREPRENEURIAL FREEDOM. AFTER SURVIVING A MOTION TO DISMISS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE TRIAL COURT RULED AGAINST THE INSTITUTE ON THE MERITS, AND THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED. THE INSTITUTE FILED A CERT PETITION WITH THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IN EARLY 2015. NO ATTORNEY'S FEES HAVE BEEN AWARDED SO FAR (BUT THEY WERE REQUESTED IN THE COMPLAINT). WRIGHT V. STANTON ON BEHALF OF TAXPAYERS, THE GOLDWATER INSTITUTE SUED THE CITY OF PHOENIX TO CHALLENGE ITS ILLEGAL "PENSION SPIKING" PRACTICE, WHEREBY THE CITY ALLOWS SENIOR PUBLIC SAFETY PERSONNEL TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF THEIR PENSIONS BY CASHING IN UNUSED SICK LEAVE, VACATION, AND OTHER BENEFITS, THEREBY INFLATING THE FINAL SALARY USED TO CALCULATE PENSION BENEFITS. THE RESULT IS HUNDREDS OF MILLION IN INCREASED COSTS TO PHOENIX TAXPAYERS. THIS PRACTICE OF "PENSION SPIKING" VIOLATES A STATE STATUTE THAT PROHIBITS PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FROM USING "UNUSED SICK LEAVE, PAYMENT IN LIEU OF VACATION, PAYMENT FOR UNUSED COMPENSATORY TIME OR PAYMENT FOR ANY FRINGE BENEFITS" TO INCREASE COMPENSATION FOR PENSION PURPOSES. THE INSTITUTE SURVIVED FOUR MOTIONS TO DISMISS, ALLOWING THE CASE TO PROCEED. IN RESPONSE TO THIS CASE, THE CITY OF PHOENIX VOLUNTARILY CHANGED ITS CONTRACTS WITH UNION ORGANIZATIONS TO ELIMINATE THE PENSION SPIKING PROVISIONS. THE INSTITUTE DOES NOT SEEK ATTORNEY'S FEES. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION A, LINE 6 | THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ARE ALSO MEMBERS OF THE CORPORATION. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION A, LINE 7A | NEW DIRECTORS ARE ELECTED BY THE REMAINING BOARD OF DIRECTORS. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 11 | AN OUTSIDE ACCOUNTING FIRM PREPARES THE FORM 990 AND IT IS REVIEWED BY THE TREASURER, CFO, AND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PRIOR TO SUBMISSION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR REVIEW. THE TREASURER AND CFO ADDRESS ANY ISSUES RAISED BY THE BOARD BEFORE THE RETURN IS FILED WITH THE IRS. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 12C | IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ACTUAL OR POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST, AN INTERESTED PERSON MUST DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE OF THE FINANCIAL INTEREST AND BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCLOSE ALL MATERIAL FACTS TO THE DIRECTORS AND MEMBERS OF COMMITTEES WITH GOVERNING BOARD DELEGATED POWERS CONSIDERING THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION OR ARRANGEMENT. ANY DIRECTOR, PRINCIPAL OFFICER, OR MEMBER OF A COMMITTEE WITH GOVERNING BOARD DELEGATED POWERS, WHO HAS A DIRECT OR INDIRECT FINANCIAL INTEREST IS AN INTERESTED PERSON. AFTER DISCLOSURE OF THE FINANCIAL INTEREST AND ALL MATERIAL FACTS, AND AFTER ANY DISCUSSION WITH THE INTERESTED PERSON, HE/SHE SHALL LEAVE THE GOVERNING BOARD OR COMMITTEE MEETING WHILE THE DETERMINATION OF THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST IS DISCUSSED AND VOTED UPON. THE REMAINING BOARD OR COMMITTEE MEMBERS SHALL DISCUSS IF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST EXISTS. THE ORGANIZATION'S CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY REQUIRES ANNUAL DISCLOSURE FROM ALL MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS. A STATEMENT IS FILED BY EACH BOARD MEMBER REQUIRING THE DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS AND TO STATE THE RESOLUTION OF THAT CONFLICT, IF ANY. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 15 | THE ORGANIZATION LOOKS AT THE FORM 990 OF SIMILAR ORGANIZATIONS AND COMPARES COMPENSATION FOR THE CEO AND KEY EMPLOYEES. THIS INFORMATION IS PRESENTED TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ANNUALLY FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL IN SETTING EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION. ALL COMPENSATION DECISIONS ARE DOCUMENTED IN THE BOARD MINUTES. |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION C, LINE 19 | THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ARE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC UPON REQUEST. THE ORGANIZATION DOES NOT MAKE ITS GOVERNING DOCUMENTS AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. |
| Software ID: | |
| Software Version: |