By Mike Bengert |

During the most recent election for the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board, one slate of candidates campaigned on fiscal responsibility, academic excellence, parental rights, school safety, and a simple message: Just be honest.

That vision sounds appealing, but it doesn’t reflect where things stand today. For students and parents in SUSD, the reality has fallen short.

Unfortunately for the SUSD community, the three board members elected in the last election have lived up to their promise to “protect SUSD,” meaning protect Superintendent Scott Menzel.

Look at the records of Pittinsky, Sharkey and Lewis. What meaningful policy or solutions to any of the issues in SUSD have they offered?  They haven’t. They only attack Member Carney and Member Werner when they make a proposal. Dr. Lewis is basically useless letting Menzel run the show. Pittinsky, Sharkey and Lewis don’t seem to understand that Menzel works for them, and they work for the SUSD community.

SUSD is close to reaching a point of no return. And it may not survive another year of Menzel and this governing board.

Elections have consequences.

A review of the past few months shows just how bad things have gotten in SUSD.

Despite repeated assurances about transparency, open communication, and a willingness to listen, Dr. Menzel has failed to consistently follow through. Keeping the community fully informed and being honest with the SUSD community when it matters most, has often been lacking during Dr. Menzel’s tenure as superintendent.

It’s also worth remembering that during his tenure at SUSD, Dr. Menzel has been cited by the Arizona Attorney General’s Office for multiple violations of the state’s Open Meeting Law. For those who want to review it themselves, see Az Attorney General Opinion I24-004.

As a recent example of Menzel struggling with the truth, during the SUSD Governing Board Regular Meeting 1/6/2026 (@1:23:53 – 1:24:13), explaining what he had said to parents at Copper Ridge and Cheyenne, Dr. Menzel said, “…it made sense to move quickly to get feedback… [Emphasis added]”

Fast forward to SUSD Governing Board Meeting 3/10/2026 (@1:32:20 -1:32:41), where Dr. Menzel told the board that at the meetings with the Phase II families, “…the surveys would go out after we identified the three options to get feedback on what’s possible. So that would likely be late May, early June after the committee gets the chance to do its work  [Emphasis added].”

Not only did Menzel tell two different stories about what he told the parents, but he conveniently left out that once the committee completes its work on May 7th, the community will be surveyed, and that feedback will then be filtered and evaluated by District team members. (See slides 6 & 7 SUSD Phase II Design Advisory Team Meeting 1 March 26,2026.)

The results will then be presented to the Governing Board in October for a final decision. By that point, after the District staff has “vetted” the input, it’s hard not to expect recommendations that align with Menzel’s stated goal of “disrupting and dismantling” and reducing the footprint of SUSD.

The discussion at the board meeting on December 9, 2025, offers a revealing look at the kind of leadership guiding SUSD. The SUSD Governing Board Regular Meeting 12/9/2025 is particularly informative if you want to understand who sits on the board and how they approach transparency and community input. While I’ve highlighted a few key moments below, it’s worth listening to the full exchange on forming advisory committees, from the 1:12:36 mark to 1:32:26.

It’s also important to remember that the three newest board members were elected on the strength of their professional backgrounds and extensive experience in public education. The current board president has even been recognized as a superintendent of the year. Yet, based on this discussion, there are questions about their grasp of core aspects of Arizona law and parental rights in education.

Dr. Menzel, for his part, brings a long career in public education. He is clearly experienced in navigating these conversations, often speaking at length while offering few direct answers to the concerns raised by the community.  Menzel is much more of a politician than a school superintendent.

The last time Dr. Menzel appears to have spoken most candidly about who he is may have been during his tenure as superintendent of Michigan’s Washtenaw Intermediate School District. On May 14, 2019, he participated in an interview with WISD employee David Spitzel titled, Public Schools and Social Justice: An Interview With Dr. Scott Menzel, which was published on June 7, 2019, about a year before the SUSD Governing Board hired him in 2020.

It’s worth reading that interview. It provides insight into his views on equity, inclusion, and social justice, and offers context for his stated goal of “disrupting and dismantling” SUSD.

That interview was available to the Board prior to his hiring. Either it wasn’t carefully reviewed, raising questions about the thoroughness of the vetting process, or it was reviewed and aligned with what the Board was seeking at the time. Based on the Board’s actions since Menzel’s hiring, the latter seems more likely.

As if his focus on gender identity, social emotional learning (SEL), DEI and the lack of attention to academics haven’t done enough damage to SUSD with its declining enrollment resulting in a $8M-$9M budget shortfall, now he is, with the full support of the progressives on the Board, closing schools.

Elections have consequences.

On April 29, 2025, SUSD staff presented to the Governing Board, reporting a continued decline in district enrollment, which they attributed to factors outside of the district’s control, while at the same time ignoring the feedback from parents who have left the district citing issues that are within the control of the district but are not being addressed  (Strategic Enrollment Planning Study Session, slides 29 – 31).

Based on this trend, they projected a budget shortfall beginning in fiscal year 2026–2027. This meeting also marked the first time the Governing Board formally discussed the potential need to consider school closures.

Despite the commitments Dr. Menzel made in his message on the SUSD website titled School Repurposing and Enrollment Review, the process has not unfolded in that manner.

He stated:

“As we work through this process, it is important to remember that while district leadership may bring forward recommendations, the Governing Board makes the final decisions. We are committed to keeping you informed, listening to your input, and ensuring transparency every step of the way.”

— Dr. Scott A. Menzel, Superintendent

Follow the link to the site and note how, even after months, significant portions still read “coming soon.” The page continues to state that a Phase II Design Team is being developed, even though the team has already met multiple times. Under Community Engagement, the site highlights a “commitment to transparency and open communication,” which raises an important question: why were so many parents, and even Board members, surprised by the proposed closures of Echo Canyon and Pima schools?

Listening to comments from parents of those schools during fall Board meetings, it is difficult to reconcile their experiences with claims of transparency and meaningful engagement.

On October 7, 2025, the Board voted to schedule the legally required public hearing on school closures for November 13, 2025. Then, on December 9, 2025, the Board narrowly approved, by a 3–2 vote, the closure of Echo Canyon and Pima Schools as Phase I of the District’s plan to address the projected budget shortfall.

On November 18, 2025, after the public hearing and less than 30 days before the vote to close two schools, Dr. Menzel presented his vision for a “vibrant and thriving SUSD,” outlining a two-phase approach (and a potential Phase III) to addressing the deficit. Phases I and II are focused on reducing the SUSD footprint. Phase I included the closure of Echo Canyon and Pima. Phase II proposed additional closures, including Redfield and Laguna, along with boundary and school reconfiguration changes involving Cheyenne Traditional School, Copper Ridge, Desert Canyon ES and MS. The presentation, A Vibrant and Thriving SUSD: Reducing our footprint to increase our impact, is available for review.

During the Board meeting on December 9, 2025, (SUSD Governing Board Regular Meeting 12/9/2025), prior to the vote on school closures, Member Carney stated:

“So, on October 7th, I voted no to scheduling the public hearing regarding the potential closure repurposing of Echo and Pima because I believe that one of the things we should have done first before going down that road or this road of closures and repurposing was to create a board advisory oversight committee to gather data, have community input and weigh in on solutions.”

Her full comments can be heard from 1:12:36 to 1:15:25.

The Board then continued its discussion, with Member Sharkey asking at approximately 1:16:34 what Member Carney was requesting. He stated:

“It’s my understanding, and correct me if I’m wrong, if this is a board committee that really limits the communication, it’s subject to open meeting law the same as we are as opposed to a much more interactive committee, so I just want to make sure what I’m hearing [Emphasis added].”

This raises an important question: what does “much more interactive” mean? A board committee that operates under Arizona Open Meeting Law, where meetings are publicly noticed and open to attendance, or a superintendent-appointed committee operating outside that structure? Member Carney clarified her concerns at 1:16:58 –1:17:32:

“I’m asking for a board advisory committee. We’ve had superintendent committees that came to this conclusion tonight and we don’t even know who was on them or what work was done on them. I’m asking for a board advisory committee that the public is also asking for so that everyone can be involved, everyone has input and we can come to solutions together.”

Dr. Menzel then responded, explaining the distinction between committee types at 1:17:49–1:18:14:

“…that any committee established by the Board is subject to open meeting law, which means all of the agendas have to be posted 24 hours in advance, it’s got to follow all of those rules in terms of reporting of the minutes and that process. It is perfectly acceptable as an alternative, but it slows the process down in part, you can be more nimble with the superintendent-appointed committee [Emphasis added].”

When asked about transparency differences between the two models, he added at 1:18:50–1:19:17:

“So, all of the information that’s collected is still subject to public records request, so that would be available to the public.”

However, access through public records requests is not the same as attending meetings, hearing deliberations in real time, or participating in an open process.

Board President Dr. Lewis then suggested a possible “solution” to the problem. The problem she is trying to solve is whether or not to meet their legal obligations and responsibilities under the open meeting law or continue has they did in Phase I and hide what they are doing from the public. Listen to her comments at 1:19:20–1:19:38:

“So, in the name of flexibility and expediency, and being able to work as a superintendent’s committee keeping minutes and expressing those minutes more transparently might be the solution [Emphasis added].”

She continued at 1:20:58–1:21:17:

“…so, if committees are formed at our suggestion for the work to be vetted and we say it’s a superintendent’s committee, and there’s a posting of welcome … please try and get on this committee with us, we could help advocate for committee members without it blurring the lines.”

Later in the discussion, Member Werner noted at 1:24:26–1:25:35 that:

“Clearly, our community and families and staff have been blindsided, and this process has not been effective…”

Member Pittinsky also acknowledged confusion about the committee distinctions but stated:

“…do I believe that we should have more mechanisms for the community to be involved in the decisions that will follow tonight’s vote, whichever direction it goes as well as the decisions that are ahead? Absolutely.”

That comment can be heard at 1:26:00–1:26:39.

Pittinsky always talks but he does nothing to make anything happen. Rather than offering any kind of ideas to turn his words, (“more mechanisms for the community to be involved”) into action, he just pushes back on Member Carney.

Elections have consequences, and the current direction of SUSD reflects the outcome of those choices.

The governing board now operates with a progressive majority that has supported Superintendent Menzel’s approach to restructuring the district and closing schools. A Phase II Design Committee has already begun meeting outside of public view, with its findings expected to be reviewed by district staff before being presented to the Board in October.

Those recommendations are anticipated to align with the Phase II framework outlined in Menzel’s presentation, “A Vibrant and Thriving SUSD: Reducing our footprint to increase our impact.”

At the same time, recruitment is underway for a second committee, the Coronado Learning Community Design Team. Its stated purpose is:

“This team will guide the development of a comprehensive strategic plan designed to increase enrollment across all CLC schools and strengthen academic outcomes for all students. The work of the Design Team will help ensure that the Coronado Learning Community remains strong, sustainable, and focused on student success.”

This raises a broader question: if increasing enrollment and strengthening programs across CLC is a goal, why not make it a goal for the entire district?  Why were proposals centered on school closures and consolidation prioritized before broader district-wide alternatives were fully explored?

Members Carney and Werner have argued that school closures should be a last resort and have advocated for earlier, more inclusive evaluation of alternatives, including district-wide strategies to increase enrollment and stabilize schools.

For many in the community, that contrast highlights a concern about process and priorities, particularly whether all viable options are being fully considered before decisions are made.

Elections have consequences, and those consequences are now playing out in how these decisions are being shaped and implemented.

SUSD needs a change in leadership.

Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.