By Matthew Holloway |

The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (MCAO) found that Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) violated Arizona’s Open Meeting Law, according to a Sept. 22 letter that directly contradicts the district’s subsequent claim that no violation had been found.

“MCAO concluded that an Open Meeting Law violation has occurred,” Deputy County Attorney Caitlyn Mitchell wrote to complainant Michael Bengert in the letter.

The investigation concerned SUSD’s Phase II Design Advisory Team, whose work involved proposals for repurposing, consolidating, or closing district schools. Mitchell said investigators reviewed Governing Board meeting recordings, accompanying agendas, and supplemental information provided by Bengert.

SUSD General Counsel Renee Osipov subsequently disputed statements that MCAO had found a violation.

“Scottsdale Unified School District has received communication and a public comment indicating that the Maricopa County Attorney’s office found the District in violation of the Open Meeting Law (OML) with respect to the operation of the Phase II Design Team. This is inaccurate,” Osipov wrote in a correspondence with Bengert shared with AZ Free News.

“The County Attorney did not issue adverse findings, did not cite the District for an OML violation, and did not initiate any corrective action,” she added.

The district also published that position on its website Oct. 1.

MCAO’s Sept. 22 letter expressly states that the office informed SUSD of its conclusions.

“MCAO has informed SUSD of its findings and conclusions, recommended that SUSD revise its future use of superintendent appointed committees, and requested that the SUSD Governing Board acknowledge the results of this investigation publicly at the open meeting to discuss the Phase II Team’s recommendations,” Mitchell wrote.

The office said the team had completed its work, making it too late to require corrective action concerning future team meetings. The letter stated that the investigation was closed and did not announce a penalty.

An earlier letter to district counsel on Sept. 16 detailed the office’s reasoning.

“Although the creation of SUSD’s Phase II Design Advisory Team (‘Phase II Team’) does not—as a purely technical matter—fall under the statutory definition of an ‘advisory committee or subcommittee,’ the purpose and subsequent operation of the Phase II Team does,” prosecutors wrote.

The disagreement centers on the Governing Board’s involvement in the team’s creation and whether its work served the board or district administrators.

Osipov said the superintendent formed the team to conduct an analysis for the administration. She said it was not charged with making recommendations to the Governing Board regarding repurposing, consolidating, or closing schools.

“The team’s work was intended to inform the administration’s development of options for Governing Board consideration,” she wrote.

MCAO’s Sept. 16 letter said the board discussed creating an advisory body during 2025 and considered the issue Jan. 6, 2026. Although the board declined to amend its policy to establish a standing advisory board, prosecutors said the superintendent subsequently created the Phase II team and tasked it with making recommendations to the board.

“The timing of these events suggests the Governing Board’s implicit direction to the superintendent to create an advisory board for the purpose of advising the Governing Board,” the letter states.

Prosecutors described the team as the board’s “brainchild” and said its recommendations concerned matters the board would vote on.

Osipov challenged MCAO’s interpretation, saying portions of the Sept. 16 letter conflicted with opinions issued by the Arizona Attorney General’s Office. She also said SUSD posted materials after each meeting to support transparency.

The amended Attorney General Opinion, issued June 23, 2025, explains that a superintendent-created committee does not automatically become subject to Open Meeting Law because its work leads to recommendations reaching the board.

The opinion says the law typically does not apply when the superintendent develops a proposal without board direction or other close involvement. It also cautions that a governing board cannot evade public meeting requirements by informally establishing a committee or directing a superintendent to establish one. A committee’s subsequent work can become subject to the law when the board tasks it with developing policy recommendations.

MCAO’s Sept. 16 letter relied on its assessment of the board’s involvement and the team’s function. It recommended that SUSD avoid an overly narrow interpretation of the law when determining whether future advisory bodies must hold public meetings.

Prosecutors also cited A.R.S. § 38-431.09, which directs those interpreting Arizona’s Open Meeting Law to favor open and public meetings.

The complaint was initially submitted to Attorney General Kris Mayes’ office, which referred it to MCAO July 17 after citing a conflict of interest. The complaint concerned public access to the advisory team’s meetings.

Bengert has also raised broader concerns about district leadership and public participation, criticizing SUSD’s academic outcomes, enrollment losses, and financial management while questioning whether its governing board provided sufficient scrutiny of Superintendent Scott Menzel’s administration. He argued that parents and residents needed opportunities to hear opposing views on district policies and decisions.

Bengert has asked MCAO to respond publicly to SUSD’s characterization of the investigation. In correspondence shared with AZ Free News, he disputed Osipov’s statements and asked the county attorney’s office to clarify its findings directly to the district.

An MCAO spokesperson said the office was reviewing additional questions and checking whether other correspondence existed.

AZ Free News requested additional comment from Scottsdale Unified School District and General Counsel Renee Osipov regarding the county attorney’s findings and the district’s characterization of the investigation. Neither had responded to those inquiries by the time of publication.

Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.