Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano distinguished herself in Arizona as a topnotch attorney general and as a wise and prudent governor.

So it comes as no surprise that President Obama reportedly is considering Napolitano among his potential nominees for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Fellow Arizonan Sandra Day O’Connor was the first woman to serve as a Supreme Court justice. She was appointed by President Reagan in 1981 and retired in 2005.

O’Connor gained renown for her diligence, integrity and penchant for constructive compromise. She did Arizona proud.

Napolitano would make us proud, too.

While we’re pleased that she now is heading Homeland Security, we believe her lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court would provide an even greater service to our nation.

As the National Rifle Association was en route to Phoenix, the state House showed its support by passing a bill to let Arizonans stash concealed guns in their parked cars.

But while HB 2474 may please some gun owners, it’s an outrage for property owners, employers and businesses, which no longer could prohibit gun storage in vehicles parked in their lots and garages.

In addition to infringing on private property rights, this legislation raises serious safety concerns.

Supporters say the bill, sponsored by Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, would provide convenience for people who may be planning to hunt or shoot before or after work.

Alas, it also would make workplace shootings far more convenient by allowing workers to keep loaded guns stashed just outside in the parking lot – whether the employer likes it or not.

Workplace violence already affects more than 2 million workers in the U.S. each year, accounting for about 20 percent of violent crime, according to a 2008 study commissioned by the ASIS Foundation.

About 500 workplace homicides occur each year, the report found.

The legislation, which has yet to be heard by the Senate, also could imperil homeland security because power plants and military contractors no longer could ban guns in their parking lots.

The bill does provide exemptions for nuclear-generating stations, businesses that run a gated and controlled parking lot, and facilities that search vehicles and passengers as they enter a secure parking facility.

But legislators cannot possibly predetermine what institutions have a legitimate need to bar guns from their parking areas.

We also find little solace in another argument by the bill supporters, that security would be enhanced for people who drive through dangerous neighborhoods.

Those who cannot avoid such dangerous areas and tote guns as a result still shouldn’t have the right to store their loaded gun in a private parking lot if the owner doesn’t want it there.

We agree with Rep. Chad Campbell, a Phoenix Democrat, that property owners should have the right to determine whether to allow guns in their parking lots.

Six other Democrats joined with House Republicans to pass this bill Thursday, just days before the NRA’s 50,000 members descend on Phoenix.

We would like to remind those Democrats, and the Republicans they joined, that in today’s world, national security and personal safety are paramount.

While HB 2474 purports to enhance personal safety, it in fact does just the opposite.

These are factors the Senate would be well-advised to consider before voting on this ill-conceived gun bill.

Several members of the Tucson City Council this week violated the spirit – and possibly the letter – of the state’s Open Meetings Law.

The law was written to ensure that decisions by public bodies are made in public. That didn’t happen when several council members got together ahead of the meeting to reach consensus on controversial budget cuts.

It’s a practice that must not be repeated.

Before Tuesday’s meeting, Councilwoman Nina Trasoff said she had met with some colleagues “in twos or in threes” to discuss funding cuts to nonprofit groups and other jurisdictions.

Trasoff said that since four council members had not been together, there never was a quorum so it didn’t violate the state Open Meetings Law.

That’s defining the law too narrowly – and flies in the face of several opinions from the state Attorney General’s Office.

The law says this: “All meetings of any public body shall be public meetings and all persons so desiring shall be permitted to attend and listen to the deliberations and proceedings.”

But that’s just the beginning. Public bodies cannot circumvent the intent of the law by meeting in smaller groups ahead of time to reach consensus. That prohibition extends to the exchange of e-mails among members of a body in an attempt to reach an agreement.

A 1975 opinion by the state Attorney General’s Office said “all discussions, deliberations, considerations or consultations among a majority of the members of a governing body regarding matters which may foreseeably require final action or final decision of the governing body constitute ‘legal action’ and must be conducted in an open meeting.”

The same opinion says that discussions taking place among fewer than a majority of the members “to circumvent the purpose of the Open Meeting Act . . . would constitute a violation.”

That covers almost precisely what Trasoff did with Regina Romero, Karin Uhlich and Shirley Scott.

The discussion involved possible budget cuts so the city could avoid instituting a tax on residential rentals. That tax was the subject of lengthy and heated public hearings that drew hundreds of Tucsonans recently.

Council members should have continued that discussion in public so citizens could hear the entire messy process with all views expressed.

The talk should not have taken place in a series of private conversations and telephone calls, with the resulting consensus presented in public as a neatly packaged fait accompli.

City Council members must be educated not only on the Open Meetings Law, but also on the way it has been interpreted over the years. Public business must be conducted in public.

When budgets are cut, it’s easy to focus on the dollars and cents and forget that real people are affected.

That may explain why the state Legislature is moving ahead with cuts to the state Department of Economic Security – cuts that will deeply affect the lives of developmentally and mentally disabled people.

Even if legislators brush aside the human toll and look only at the finances, these are cuts that should be reversed. In the long run, Arizona taxpayers will end up spending far more if the DES budget is cut than if spending levels are maintained.

Legislators are in an unenviable position, with state spending needing to be cut by at least $3 billion for the fiscal year beginning July 1. Some of the cuts could be avoided if lawmakers embraced a proposal by Gov. Jan Brewer to ask voters for a temporary tax increase.

Brewer seems to have backed away from the idea, but it makes sense. The alternative is eviscerating cuts that would return crucial state services to levels not seem in decades.

That’s what DES is facing.

The current budget proposal would cut about $41 million from state-funded disability programs and an additional $50 million to $60 million for long-term care for the most severely disabled.

And those cuts would come on top of a 10 percent cut to DES to balance the current year’s budget.

In a story published Tuesday in the Tucson Citizen, Jim Walsh of The Arizona Republic wrote about how the cuts would hurt 2-year-old Gabriel Saucedo, who was born without hands. With the help of a therapist from a state-funded program, the boy has learned how to feed himself, fasten his shoes and hold a pencil in his mouth to draw.

Without the program, Gabriel and 2,000 other children would require full-time care for the rest of their lives. That’s not only unconscionable, it would be a far larger financial burden for taxpayers than eliminating the proposed cuts.

One Arizonan who works with disabled residents says the cuts were proposed because his clients are an easy target.

“I believe it was a convenient decision . . . to make because it’s a vulnerable population and they can’t speak for themselves,” said Randy Gray, president and CEO of Marc Center in Mesa.

Gray said the proposed cuts would revert “our entire system of quality care back to the early 1970s.”

That must not be allowed to happen. The state must stand up for the most needy among us – even in the toughest of times. The cuts to DES must be re-evaluated.

If we can’t look out for the most vulnerable, who is safe?

Arizona legislators who have been roundly criticized for slashing education spending, are striking back.

Unfortunately, truth was a casualty as at least one lawmaker threw unsubstantiated and inaccurate allegations at school officials, accusing them of “illegally and secretly stockpiling millions of dollars.”

It makes for a great press release. But little of it is true.

As they dig in the sofa cushions looking for every unsecured dime to balance the state budget, lawmakers have turned their eyes on school funds. That’s understandable because education represents the single largest area of state spending – as it should be.

But in trying to grab money from schools, lawmakers showed that they really don’t understand the complexities of education finance.

In a recent press release, state Sen. Pamela Gorman, a Republican from the Phoenix suburb of Anthem, claimed school districts had more than $2.3 billion “cash” in the bank.

“A relatively small portion of this cash balance could be used” to help balance the budget for fiscal 2010, Gorman claimed.

Then she started lobbing grenades, accusing schools of “blatant deception and hypocrisy”

“Districts have been violating state law and illegally amassing larger and larger cash balances while crying out that we at the Legislature are decimating public education,” Gorman said. “It is shameless!”

If Gorman has any evidence of illegal activity, let’s see it. Every school district is audited every year and no allegation of illegal cash hoarding has ever been raised before Gorman’s broadside.

It is true that Arizona school districts have money in the bank. To not do so would be incredibly poor financial management. The Legislature often has challenged school districts to act like businesses – and that is what they are doing.

Money is held in reserve for many reasons. Hundreds of millions of dollars come from the federal government for the school lunch program. Some are gifts or school tax credit money waiting to be spent.

Other money is held in self- insurance accounts to pay health and liability claims. And if school districts collect property taxes in excess of what they are allowed to legally spend, the money is used to reduce property taxes in the following year.

The Legislature does have a difficult task facing it as it struggles to balance the state budget. But stealing money from school districts, then trying to distract the public with wildly inaccurate allegations of illegal activity is not going to make the job any easier.

Legislators should balance the budget based on honest and transparent discussion. Gorman’s statements were neither.

There is an interesting dichotomy in a couple of the Legislature’s budget decisions.

One way the Legislature proposes to collect more money is by stealing $265 million from impact fees paid to cities and counties.

At the same time, the Legislature is planning to hand out a $250 million tax break – mostly to businesses.

The state House budget plan would permanently wipe off the books a statewide property tax. The tax was put on hiatus for three years when the state had budget surpluses and was scheduled to return next year.

But instead of letting the tax go back into effect just in time to help address record deficits, lawmakers now say they want to repeal it.

Here’s a better idea: Keep the tax in place and let cities and counties keep their impact fee money.

Gov. Jan Brewer said she wanted a $1 billion per year temporary tax increase and called that one of her budget "principles" Now she's abandoned that position. So much for principles. What does Brewer stand for?

A state budget that can only be described as disastrous is taking shape as Gov. Jan Brewer stands on the sidelines, unwilling to get involved.

This budget, if approved in anything close to its present form, will deeply hurt schools, cities, clinics, hospitals, universities and services for children and the developmentally disabled.

It will eviscerate many state services and drive away businesses hoping to locate or expand here. And it will take years for the state to recover.

Brewer, who earlier staked out a strong position in favor of preserving essential state services, has turned tail and run away, displaying a complete lack of backbone. Her noninvolvement in dealing with this – the state’s most pressing issue – is deeply disappointing.

Despite promises of openness and transparency, Republicans in the state House have drawn up their budget plan in secret. Many Republicans legislators as well as all Democrats have been shut out of the process.

The result is terrible.

Cities and counties that collected impact fees from developers to build roads, parks and public safety facilities would have to turn over $265 million of that to the state. That’s grossly unfair as cities and counties deal with their own budget problems.

There are raids on school funds, in addition to proposed cuts in school operating payments – cuts that run counter to voter-approved increases.

The Legislature also plans to eliminate Science Foundation Arizona, which was formed to nurture high-tech businesses.

And legislators are relying largely on one-time money from fund sweeps and from the federal stimulus program for much of the budget fix – not a sound way to situate the state for future years.

Despite all these deep cuts, the state budget still is about $700 million short of being in balance.

Recognizing the impossibility of balancing the budget while still providing needed services, Brewer several months ago said she wanted a $1 billion per year temporary tax increase. She also said she would submit her own proposal for a balanced budget.

She has failed to submit a budget plan and to flesh out details of the tax increase proposal. And although she said several times that the tax boost was one of her budget “principles,” she’s abandoned that position.

So much for principles. What does Brewer stand for?

This is a budget proposal that would devastate Arizona. And it is being pushed through as the governor is MIA.

It is a shameful performance by the person who is supposed to be the state’s leader – a performance that voters certainly will remember next year if and when she seeks election to this job she inherited.

Ashley Kornacki, 11, plays a game of rollerball during an afterschool program at the Joan M. Swetland Community Center, at Sahaurita Park. Pima County is facing budget cuts and may have to close or transfer this community center to the Sahuarita School District.

It may look like mere play to grown-ups, but recreation for Tucson’s youth is a lot more than fun and games.

Whether shooting hoops or swimming laps, kids who participate in sports and other recreation are more likely to stay healthy and fit – and they’re a lot less likely to engage in juvenile crime.

The more free and inexpensive after-school and summer recreation programs for kids there are, the healthier and safer our communities will be.

So we commend the Pima County Board of Supervisors for voting Tuesday to undo its earlier decisions to impose fees on after-school and summer programs and to close some community centers and parks.

Yes, we know times are hard, and we know that the county’s costs for Parks & Recreation have risen considerably.

The supervisors have a budget to balance, and that’s not an easy task to undertake in these trying times.

Nonetheless, any move to raise fees and reduce recreation access should be undertaken gradually and judiciously.

That’s how the county is responding as of this week.

Letters of protest poured in from parents and youth program leaders when the county proposed $195 per semester fees for the Get Active! Afternoons after-school programs and $270 for an eight-week Stay Active! Summers program.

We’re glad the programs will continue free of charge, at least for now.

In addition, the commissioners did the right thing by delaying field fee increases for athletic organizations until February 2010, giving Little League and other groups the opportunity to plan and budget for the higher costs.

Some fee increases and recreation reductions appear to be inevitable, given the county’s 50 percent increase in Parks & Recreation costs over the past five years.

The department budget was $15.6 million in 2008-09 compared with just $10.4 million in 2003-04 – and fees have not increased during that time.

But we urge the supervisors to raise fees fairly, by providing advance notice and special deals for low-income families as well as those with multiple children.

Ultimately, healthy communities will encourage recreation, treating it as a line-item to be subsidized rather than as a profit-making endeavor.

Of course the county must break even. But when kids have healthy outlets, our society ultimately saves a lot of heartache and money otherwise spent on crime-fighting, incarceration and rehabilitation.

We encourage county leaders to do all they can to keep youth recreation as free from fees as possible. It’s far more than child’s play.

These are difficult times for Rio Nuevo, with the downtown redevelopment program fighting to prevent a state death sentence as it struggles to define its own mission.

Rio Nuevo and downtown Tucson will survive and will thrive. But the Legislature must let it live long enough to prove that it can be viable when the economy recovers.

With state lawmakers hunting for every available dime, the operations of Rio Nuevo have come under close scrutiny.

The major funding source for the project is tax increment financing, under which a portion of new sales tax revenue generated in a specific area is returned to the city instead of going to the state.

The city of Tucson has made Rio Nuevo an attractive target, with an underwhelming list of projects to show for the millions of dollars that have been spent. So legislators are trying a variety of strangulation tactics to reduce or eliminate the project’s state funding.

And while some reforms are needed, the Legislature must let Rio Nuevo receive its promised funding.

Reducing or eliminating funding would make it impossible for the district to repay bonds that have been sold to renovate the Tucson Convention Center and build a new downtown hotel. A state move to cut off that funding after it has been encumbered likely would be illegal.

But there also is the matter of equity. Maricopa County used a similar funding strategy to build stadiums for professional sports: football in Glendale and baseball in Phoenix. And roads to a Phoenix-area racetrack were improved in the same way.

Tucson won its “right” to TIF money in a deal that also included the Phoenix projects. It would be grossly unfair of the Maricopa County-dominated Legislature to now renege on Pima County projects.

To their substantial credit, Tucson-area legislators of both parties have banded together to save Rio Nuevo funding. They must remain steadfast and not back down as legislative negotiations continue.

Tucson deserves the chance in a recovering economy to show that downtown can be reborn and be a true asset to southern Arizona and to the entire state.

In its rush to cut spending, the Legislature is ignoring a voter mandate requiring funding for education to be increased annually.

This is far more than a legal technicality. This is a requirement imposed by voters. And under the state constitution, it is something neither the Legislature nor anyone else can ignore.

A brief history lesson is helpful: In 2000, Arizona voters approved Proposition 301. The initiative increased the state sales tax by 0.6 cent per dollar with the money going to all levels of education.

But voters also mandated in Prop. 301 that the Legislature could not reduce education funding to offset the new revenue. The measure required that state funding to schools be increased by the rate of inflation or by 2 percent annually, whichever is lower.

For fiscal 2010, which begins July 1, the required increase in state funding for education is 2 percent. But legislators are ignoring that and planning aggressive cuts to balance a budget that is $3 billion in the red.

Should the Legislature continue to ignore the mandate, the Arizona School Boards Association says it is prepared to challenge the budget in court.

In a letter to legislative leaders, Panfilo Contreras, executive director of the association, noted that a court decision as well as an opinion by the Arizona attorney general both concluded across-the-board spending increases for education are mandated by Prop. 301.

And under Arizona’s Voter Protection Act, the Legislature is not allowed to tinker with voter-approved measures – unless it furthers the intent of the measure. Clearly that is not what the Legislature is doing when it cuts funding that voters said must be increased annually.

The School Boards Association has retained an attorney to file suit against the Legislature and Gov. Jan Brewer if a budget is passed and signed that cuts education.

But to its credit, the association said it recognizes the state is going through extraordinary financial times. It is prepared to accept some funding reductions as long as legislators make the required increases and then cut them.

Yes, these are difficult times for state budget-writers. But as Contreras wrote in his letter to legislators, “We can’t return to the days of moving backwards and tough times are no excuse to set aside these legal and fiscal obligations.”

Arizona already spends less on schools than almost every other state does. The voters of this state have emphatically said that must change – and they have backed it up with an ironclad ballot initiative.

It shouldn’t take a court case to ensure that the Legislature does the right thing. But if that is needed, bring it on.

The Legislature’s draft spending proposal slashes education; health care for poor and disabled Arizonans; child protection; and other services to balance the budget without obvious tax increases or borrowing.

It’s a perfect illustration of how the majority of our legislators try to cling to conservative ideology – i.e., no new taxes – while ignoring the many consequences, from human suffering to setting our economy even further back than it has fallen.

Evidently this ill-conceived budget is the best they can produce after nearly four months in session. Given that failure of leadership, where is Gov. Jan Brewer?

Brewer vowed months ago to push for a new tax via a special election to raise $3 billion. Yet she still hasn’t said what type or size tax she would like to pursue or how the new revenue would be spent from her “five-point tax hike plan.”

Brewer also promised to provide her own detailed budget proposal, but she hasn’t done so even as Arizona struggles through its worst budget crisis in history.

Meanwhile, Republican budget negotiators are playing a veritable shell game with our money while feigning protection of taxpayers.

They want to sweep more than $300 million in savings accounts from school districts, for example, even though much of that money typically is used to cut local property taxes.

They also want to strip about $265 million from cities and counties, a move that likely would force some local governments to pursue new taxes to cover the shortfall.

Yet at the same time, legislators have waived $240 million in outstanding taxes due from corporations, and have terminated 300 employees from the Department of Revenue – staffers whose absence will cost the state $174 million in lost collections, Brewer advisers say.

Legislators and Brewer are ducking responsibility when Arizona needs them most.

Now an even more bleak picture is emerging, as April tax figures show a revenue shortfall of as much as $300 million will materialize by June. That’s on top of the $487 million shortfall already documented.

So how will Republican budget gurus cope with that? By cutting more services for vulnerable Arizonans, we’d wager.

Now more than ever, Arizona needs its governor to exercise some leadership. Brewer has failed to do so, but she still can step up.

We urge her to show some strength before our schools fall apart, hospitals overflow and local governments suffer. Governor, Arizonans are counting on you.

Gov. Jan Brewer eased next year’s hit on the pocketbooks of university students – but her high-handed demand for an overhaul of the higher education system leaves a lot to be desired.

The state Board of Regents decided this week that university students will have to pay more – much more – in tuition next year. But the boost was less than it could have been because of unilateral action by Brewer.

In-state undergraduates at the University of Arizona will pay a $766 tuition surcharge this fall – on top of a $545 increase in tuition and fees. That $1,311 one-year increase is the largest in state history.

But it could have been worse. The surcharge was cut by 30 percent after Brewer said she would allocate $280 million in federal stimulus money to the universities.

While that did provide immediate aid, it delayed the inevitable. Some 40 percent of the stimulus money can be spent in fiscal 2010 and the remaining 60 percent in fiscal 2011. When that one-time infusion is spent, the universities will be back in a deep financial hole.

“We have deferred the harder decision,” said Regent Fred DuVal.

And while Brewer’s decision to allocate more stimulus money to the universities was helpful, the same cannot be said for her demand that the regents revamp the university system to create more affordable options for students who do not need to attend a research-intensive school.

Brewer made her demand in the 20 minutes she swept in and out of the regents’ meeting Thursday. She is an ex officio member of the board but had not previously attended a meeting in her three months as governor.

The regents, and the presidents of all three state universities, are and have been looking at more affordable ways to educate students – including more online classes and working with community colleges to offer the first two years of classes to reduce the cost of a four-year degree.

But Brewer told the regents, “By this fall, I want a new business model that is accountable, predictable and affordable to taxpayers, parents and students.”

Well, that’s fine, but Brewer needs to do more than throw up a utopian dream and demand that it become reality in a few months.

And if she wants higher education that is affordable to students – which is required in the Arizona Constitution – she needs to take the lead in persuading the Legislature to stop slashing state support for the universities.

Yes, Gov. Brewer, a university education in Arizona is too expensive. But don’t just issue fiats, then walk away. Get down and do the work necessary to make change happen.

As the city of Tucson examines a plethora of new revenue sources in a struggle to balance its budget, Pima County is on much more sound financial footing.

Part of it is because the county relies on a different revenue source than the city. But it also is due to solid financial planning and management by County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry, members of his staff and other county administrators.

When the economy turned sour, Huckelberry ordered across-the-board spending cuts of 7 percent to 10 percent. The Sheriff’s Department was exempt. That early move means the county will be able to cut the property tax rate while still ending the year with a surplus of about $24.5 million.

Compare that with the city. Then-City Manager Mike Hein proposed cuts, but the City Council dithered and took no action – until it decided to fire Hein. Now the city is hunting for new revenue and faces a deficit.

A large part of the city’s problem is its reliance on sales tax revenue. The county relies on property taxes, where revenue lags a year or two behind the economic downturn.

Nonetheless, problems loom for the county. The most significant is the uncertain future and unknown costs of operating University Physicians Healthcare Hospital at Kino Campus.

There is no inexpensive way to provide health care to the county’s indigent population. In past years, the county operated Kino, and it was a financial debacle.

University Physicians Inc., which employs doctors who work in the University of Arizona College of Medicine, took over operation of the hospital in 2004. The group has a 20-year contract to run the hospital but can back out at any time.

In the past five years, the hospital’s losses have been deeper than forecast, largely because every year the hospital provides about $12 million in care to uninsured people.

County Supervisor Ann Day has called for an independent audit of University Physicians’ books – a reasonable request. The county must ensure it is paying the fair costs of running the hospital but not unrelated costs of training UA medical students who work at the hospital.

Nonetheless, in this miserable economy, Pima County is doing a laudable job of providing essential public services within the confines of its budget.

<strong>Clarissa Bettini</strong> (center) holds up a sign protesting a rental tax during a public hearing before the City Council Tuesday evening at the Tucson Convention Center. More than 600 people were in the meeting room and another 400 people were outside the meeting room.

We trust the Tucson City Council heard the message loud and clear Tuesday night, as hundreds of citizens poured out to protest a proposed rent tax.

Our elected officials face a challenge in drafting a budget with a serious shortfall of revenue.

But they must seriously consider the burden that extra taxes impose on low-income residents during this dire recession.

With unemployment at extremely high levels, state social services being slashed and no relief in sight, the prospect of a new rent tax did not sit well with Tucson voters – and understandably so.

City officials now should head straight back to the drawing board to search for other ways to raise revenues or, better yet, cut costs.

The people have spoken – loudly. Now the City Council needs to acknowledge that it got the message.

A bill in the Legislature would make it easier for state agencies to provide public records – and would make the process more environmentally friendly too.

SB 1305 would require public bodies that keep records electronically to provide them on CD-ROM or another electronic format upon request.

The bill is sponsored by Sen. Jay Tibshraeny, a Chandler Republican.

It would make the process faster and cheaper with information that is easier to search. And it it makes printing a stack of documents unnecessary.

Public records law must keep up with evolving technology. This bill would help accomplish that.