Seven candidates seek three Gadsden school board seats; one answered the county guide

Gadsden Elementary School District voters will choose three board members in the Nov. 3 election. Seven candidates appear in the county education office's publication for the three four-year seats. Those elected will help decide how the district spends public money, supports employees and addresses student performance.

But the official candidate guide offers little basis for comparing the seven. Only Maria Guzman supplied a statement. The other six entries say no response was submitted. Some candidates have discussed their backgrounds or priorities elsewhere, but the available accounts do not provide a complete, comparable set of plans.

The county seats document lists three Gadsden four-year seats and no two-year seat, while cautioning that vacancies can change the number of open positions. Yuma Informed's Election Center has broader local ballot information. The county candidate publication is not a substitute for confirming the final ballot.

Who is running, and what is known

The county board roster identifies current members; the candidate-statement publication shows who supplied statements. Outside profiles are identified separately because campaign claims and independent records are not the same kind of evidence.

Liliana Arroyo. A current board member whose term ends in 2026, according to the roster. She did not submit a statement for the county guide. The sources reviewed did not establish a detailed current platform or independent biography.

Mark Concha. Also a current member with a term ending in 2026. The district's January announcement identifies him as the board clerk for 2026. He did not submit a county statement, and a detailed current platform was not established in the reviewed material.

Brian Alaniz De La Hoya. Not listed on the current board roster. An Oct. 13 KYMA profile describes him as a substitute teacher and independent journalist studying business administration. It attributes to him support for expanded educational opportunities, more programs and events, and additional schools. No detailed cost or financing plan for expansion appears in that report. He did not submit the county statement.

Maria Guzman. Not listed on the current roster and the only candidate who supplied a county statement. She describes herself as a mother, educator and community advocate, calling for student-centered policies, stronger support for staff, parent involvement and transparent spending. Arizona List, a political action committee endorsing her, describes her work in advising and student services at Arizona Western College and as an adjunct instructor. That account comes from an advocacy organization, not independent confirmation of every biographical detail.

Maria Luz “Lucky” Hoyos. A current member whose term ends in 2026. She did not submit a county statement. The reviewed sources did not establish a detailed current platform or independent biography.

Luis “Cuate1” Marquez. Not on the current board roster. In an Oct. 3 interview with journalist Luis Carlos Bravo, Marquez described former police service, decades connected to Gadsden and earlier service as board president. Those are attributed accounts of his experience. The reviewed sources did not establish detailed current budget or academic proposals. He did not submit the county statement.

Manuel “Redz” Rojas. Not listed on the current board roster. He did not submit a county statement, and the sources reviewed did not establish a detailed platform or independently verified public-service biography.

Not submitting a statement to one publication does not establish that a candidate has no positions, has not spoken publicly or declined to answer questions elsewhere. It means the county guide cannot give voters an equal comparison.

The decisions awaiting the next board

The district serves a student population with substantial and varied needs. The Arizona Auditor General's FY2025 report lists 4,884 students at eight schools. English learners made up 52% of enrollment, and students receiving special education made up 14%. Those figures matter when candidates talk about staffing, classroom resources and academic support.

The same report says 46.6% of operational spending went specifically to instruction, compared with 49.4% among districts in Gadsden's operational peer group. A broader measure that includes student and instructional support puts Gadsden's classroom spending at 66.4%. These measure different categories. Treating the smaller instruction figure as the district's entire classroom spending would mislead readers.

In FY2025 state assessments, Gadsden reported passing rates of 30% in math, 30% in English language arts and 15% in science. Statewide rates were 33%, 40% and 28%, respectively. The report's weighted achievement-peer comparisons were 27%, 29% and 14%. Gadsden was below statewide rates in all three subjects but slightly above those peer comparisons. The results show areas worth asking candidates about; they do not establish why students performed as they did or which candidate would improve the scores.

Money sets limits on those promises. The district's posted FY2027 proposed budget lists approximately $40.6 million in maintenance and operating expenditures and $6.2 million in unrestricted capital expenditures. Its larger $59.8 million aggregate budget limit includes carryforward and should not be mistaken for a projection that every dollar will be spent in the current year. The linked document is labeled Proposed; it does not, on its own, establish the figures in a final adopted budget.

Employees have seen specific compensation changes. The district announced board-approved increases of 3.5% for eligible current certified, hourly and exempt employees hired before Jan. 1, 2026, and 1.75% for those hired on or after that date. The minimum hourly rate rises from $15.50 to $16, and annual Proposition 301 teacher compensation for eligible educators rises from $15,000 to $16,500. The harder questions concern how the district will sustain pay, fill openings and measure retention. Raises alone do not establish that staffing needs are met.

What the audit record shows

A December 2023 performance-audit follow-up found that Gadsden had implemented 10 of 13 recommendations and addressed another in a different way. One remained in progress and one was unimplemented. The follow-up documented improvements in payroll controls, public meeting practices and bus maintenance.

The unimplemented recommendation concerned historical transportation-reporting errors associated with roughly $218,000 in overfunding in FY2019. The district had missed the window for the state to correct FY2018 data. That is an older funding problem, not evidence of a newly discovered $218,000 loss in 2026. The remaining in-progress item concerned controls for fuel and supplies.

The district's 2026-27 goals call for quarterly reviews of student data and school conditions, public participation and financial stewardship. A useful question for any candidate is how the board would make those measures visible and follow up when targets are missed.

Campaign money is another incomplete comparison

The county's campaign-finance schedule places the deadline for third-quarter reports on Oct. 15. As of the Oct. 14 review, that deadline had not passed, and the public filing directory did not display a Gadsden candidate group.

Under the county's candidate guidance, a candidate must file a statement of organization after reaching $1,500 in combined contributions and expenditures. The absence of a listing does not establish that a candidate reached that threshold, failed to file or violated reporting rules. Comparing campaign finances fairly will require the actual filings and the periods they cover.

For now, voters can put the same questions to all seven candidates: What would you change? How would you pay for it? And which public results would show whether it worked?