The town of Gilbert has named a new Chief Digital Officer to oversee the Office of Digital Government (ODG), mired in controversy earlier this year over its speech-monitoring practices.
According to public records shared with AZ Free News, the town selected Kandice Kwan to take over for Dana Berchman, who resigned in February in relation to ODG’s monitoring and occasional punishment of employees’ online speech.
Under Berchman, ODG would contact various departmental leadership about employees’ online speech if it ran counter to progressive ideals (namely support for Black Lives Matter or LGBTQ ideology) or was critical of their department. Internal messaging from Berchman alluded that she maintained a dossier of town employees’ social media activity.
As reported, Berchman would post publicly and often her support of Democratic candidates and progressive issues such as abortion, gun control, and same-sex marriage.
In response to the reporting on ODG’s practice, the town issued a statement (likely from ODG) defending the speech monitoring and restrictions.
“The town has been clear that we will not tolerate divisive, offensive, or culturally insensitive posts from employees purporting to represent the town,” said the public statement. “There is not further need to address the false claims from anyone, including disgruntled former employees.”
For nearly a decade, Kwan has worked for R&R Partners, an advertising, marketing, and public affairs firm. Among their clients are Avnet, Anheuser-Busch, Boeing, Ford, Facebook, Honeywell, Los Vegas Convention and Visitors Association, and Signature Aviation. Prior to that, Kwan worked as the digital marketing director for the Valley’s popular Fox Restaurant Concepts.
Based on her limited online footprint, it appears that Kwan’s political ideologies, like her predecessor, are left-leaning.
In the wake of the racial upheaval prompted by George Floyd’s death in 2020 and both physical and social attacks on Asians early on in the pandemic, Kwan implied in a 2021 article that white individuals needed to become better allies to minorities, such as acknowledging and becoming educated on biases.
“We’re asking to stand together to #stopasianhate. We’re asking you to stand #insolidarity with the AAPI community, the Black community and all other marginalized communities,” said Kwan.
Kwan supported prolonged shutdowns of businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to her social media activity.
“[Governor Doug Ducey] is part of the reason of [sic] why we are having the ‘second wave’ due to opening businesses too early,” commented Kwan on a June 2020 news article. “Now, businesses are having to close proactively due to the spike in cases. Shame on you Governor Doug Ducey.”
Kwan will take over ODG on September 16, according to a letter from the town sent earlier this month.
Per that letter, Kwan’s starting salary will be $170,000, a decrease from Berchman’s $200,800. Under Berchman, ODG staff salaries amounted to over $1.15 million a year.
After resigning from ODG, Berchman launched her own marketing firm, Oh, hi! Communications. Berchman’s firm received endorsements from Arizona League of City and Towns deputy director Rene Guillen and former Gilbert Mayor Jenn Daniels.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
A mother from Surprise, Arizona, Rebekah Massie, stirred a major controversy in the West Valley during a city council meeting last week. Massie utilized her time to address the city’s decision to give a pay-increase to City Attorney Robert Wingo despite “numerous violations or alleged violations and blatant disregard,” for the Arizona Revised Statutes, the State Bar of Professional Conduct, the Arizona Constitution, and the U.S. Constitution.
Surprise’s outgoing Mayor Skip Hall wasn’t willing to hear her objections though. He ordered Massie’s removal from the meeting, resulting in her arrest and citation.
Mayor-Elect Kevin Sartor issued a statement Monday condemning the arrest and Hall’s actions saying, “As Americans, our right to free speech is fundamental, especially when it comes to holding our government accountable,” said Sartor. “What happened to Rebekah Massie is unacceptable. No citizen should ever be arrested for voicing their concerns, especially in a forum specifically designed for public input.”
Sartor, who was endorsed by the Republican Committee for LD29 emphatically added, “My administration will prioritize transparency, respect, and the protection of our citizens’ First Amendment rights. We will never arrest or silence our residents for expressing their views or questioning their elected officials. This is not just about Rebekah Massie; it’s about every resident of Surprise. Your voice matters, and it will always be heard.”
“The right to free speech is at the heart of our democracy, and as your next mayor, I will ensure that every citizen’s voice is heard, respected, and protected,” Sartor stated. “While there must be reasonable limits on speech in public forums—such as prohibiting violence, threats, or profanity—this recent incident did not come close to crossing those lines. As mayor, I will ensure that our city is a place where open dialogue is encouraged, not suppressed. We are stronger when every voice is heard.”
Massie began by telling the council that she was concerned about Wingo’s pay increase in light of his recent handling of allegations against the city clerk’s handling of elections along with him already earning the second-highest salary in the city at $266,000.
As reported by the Arizona Daily Independent, Massie explained, “Recent months have uncovered numerous violations or alleged violations and blatant disregard I would say for not only the Arizona Revised Statutes, the State Bar of Professional Conduct, but also the Arizona State Constitution and the Bill of Rights at the federal level.”
She continued, “Title 16, I won’t rehash everything but we are all too well and familiar with what took place during the election season and the violations thereof. City clerk is our elections officer. Nothing was done with those violations. And the city attorney did nothing as far as that. Title IX and 38 have conflict of interest pieces of information. It was deemed there was conflict of interest. Title 39, there are numerous public records requests that I have open right now that are ‘pending legal review’ that I am entitled to request.”
During her remarks Massie was cut off by Mayor Hall. “Ms. Massie, I’ve got to interrupt you here because this is the public meeting forum you agreed to when you speak and I want to read this to you,” Hall said.
He continued, speaking over her, “That there are Oral communications during the City Council meeting that may not be used to lodge charges or complaints against any employee of the city, or members of the body, regardless of whether such person is identified in the presentation by their name, or by any other reference that tends to identify him or her.”
Massie pushed back immediately, stating that Hall was violating her rights under the First Amendment and the two began to argue in a rapid exchange. “This is your warning,” Hall told her. “Warning for what?” Massie asked. “Warning for attacking a city attorney personally,” Hall replied.
“This is factual information,” Massie argued. “You are violating my First Amendment rights.”
“It doesn’t matter,” the Mayor said dismissively. “This is what you agreed to for speaking. This is the form.” Massie rejected the legality of the form, noting that if she desired she could profane the council for three straight minutes under constitutionally defined free speech. Hall rejected this. And a Surprise police officer appeared to escort her out.
Massie resisted and demanded to know the charges she was being detained on with her 10-year-old daughter looking on.
“Chief, could you have somebody come down here and escort Miss Massie?” Hall can be heard saying on video of the meeting.
“Really is that necessary? In front of my 10-year-old daughter you’re going to escort me out for expressing my First Amendment rights?” Massie protested.
“She can go with you,” the mayor answered.
Ultimately, Massie was cited for third degree trespassing according to The Center Square.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a free speech advocacy group, announced its intent to take legal action in a Monday post to X, writing “City of Surprise: We’ll see you in court. The First Amendment protects Americans’ right to criticize public officials without being arrested.”
City of Surprise: We'll see you in court.
The First Amendment protects Americans' right to criticize public officials without being arrested. https://t.co/Ii6D2dJ4v8
Massie confirmed that she is now being represented by FIRE, which is planning to file a lawsuit on her behalf in a post to X saying, “As an American, it’s my right to speak out to keep the local government accountable. And as a mom, it’s my obligation to set a good example and stand up for our fundamental rights — like the right of free speech — when they’re threatened.”
Correction: A previous version of this article incorrectly referred to Rebekah Massie as a member of FIRE. The story has been updated.
Just over four years past the initial outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and the government flexes of authority that went with it, Arizona voters, come November, will decide on whether the governor should have less powers in an emergency.
Proposition 135 would amend the Arizona Constitution to terminate the governor’s emergency powers automatically after 30 days — except in those emergencies related to war, fire, or flood — and thereafter require the legislature to approve any extensions of emergency powers. Those approvals could be granted indefinitely, and the legislature could issue certain limits to the governor’s powers.
The proposition would also require the governor to call a special legislative session to address whether to terminate or alter his or her emergency powers should one-third of the House and one-third of the Senate request it. Should the legislature reject an extension of emergency order, the governor may not call one.
Effectively, the legislature would have an even greater check and balance on the executive.
Current law allows the governor’s emergency powers to last up to 120 days before requiring legislative approval for extensions.
Arizona Horizon premiered a debate on the opposing and supportive arguments for Prop 135 earlier this month.
Will Humble, executive director of the Arizona Public Health Association (APHA) and former director of Arizona Department of Health Services, and Greg Blackie from the Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC) represented the leading arguments on either side of the issue.
Blackie, in favor of Prop 135, stressed that emergencies should be limited in their time frame, and that the “police powers” of the state shouldn’t be indefinite, as they effectively became under COVID-19.
“Emergencies by definition, are temporary, and so the response should also be temporary, especially the powers delegated to the governor,” said Blackie. “This measure simply provides reasonable limits by providing termination after 30 days unless the legislature chooses to extend those powers further.”
Our very own Greg Blackie was on 🔥 during this debate on Prop 135! We must have a mechanism in place now that ensures proper checks and balances of the delegated authority no matter what current or future statutes on emergency powers look like. https://t.co/9BAkO49PdP
Humble responded that the current, 120-day limit with 30-day permissions of extension from the legislature was sufficient to address emergencies, as exercised under former Governor Doug Ducey during the initial outbreak. In fact, Humble said that he wished that the initial term limit of 120 days were longer.
“I don’t think 30 days is long enough,” said Humble. “All of these agencies have these emergency response plans and they can’t execute those plans if they lose that authority and that authority could be lost because of partisan reasons.”
Humble alluded to the prolonged government response to addressing COVID-19 as the need for the governor to have more than 30 days to sustain an emergency order.
“I could live with a quarter of the year to figure out the emergency,” said Humble. “Let’s say you had a biological agent that was released [then] you’d have a much longer period than 30 days that you would need to implement some of these measures to help control.”
Humble also opposed Prop 135 being a constitutional amendment, citing the difficulty of amending the constitution.
But Blackie responded, “But this is the issue of what should be in the Constitution. This is a question about how our government operates and separation of powers. And that belongs in the Constitution, the framework of government. When can the governor take large sums of legislative power, and then what is the legislative check on that. It belongs in the Constitution because it fundamentally answers questions about how our government is to operate.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
The 2024 report from the Joint Legislative Budget Committee could potentially silence opponents of Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) Program once and for all. This week, Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne called the myth that the ESA program was ever a threat to the budget: “utterly demolished.”
In a press release from the Arizona Department of Education, Horne explained that for Fiscal Year 2024, which concluded on June 30th, the Basic State Aid payments for education programs at district and charter schools and the controversial ESA program all finished well under budget with a net savings to the state of $4.3 million. The news comes just days after the Goldwater Institute debunked the narrative that the ESA program harmed students and blew up the state budget as previously reported by AZ Free News.
Horne said in the press release, “Having a surplus of more than $4 million is proof positive that the critics who have claimed the ESA program will bust the not only the state’s education budget but the entire budget itself were always wrong. It was always a myth, and that myth is utterly demolished.”
The report revealed that out of $6,309,352,100 appropriated toward education funding, even with the ESA, the state only spent $6,305,050,851.55 leaving behind a $4,301,248.45 surplus.
Horne, who was previously State Superintendent of Schools from 2003 to 2011 before being elected State Attorney General, continued:
“Budget figures are stubborn facts and they do not stand up to the political posturing that ESA critics have consistently and wrongly thrown at the program. The universal ESA scholarships are a vital part of making sure that parents are able to choose the schools that best fit the needs of their children. For example, we have families with three children. Two are doing fine in the neighborhood public school, but the needs of the third are not being met. ESAs enable the parents to find a school that meets the needs of the third child. How can anyone be so immersed in ideology that they would deny the parents that ability?”
He concluded, “Having choices such as charter schools, open enrollment for district schools and ESAs are a valuable tool for Arizona parents. As today’s announcement shows, these choices do not result in any part of the budget deficit. It resulted from overly optimistic projections of state revenues. ESAs are enabling parents to find the best schools to meet their children’s needs. No rational person should oppose that.”
The revelation from the JLBC report could severely undermine the political arguments of Democrats running against the state’s ESA program in November such as Democrat John McLean who is seeking to gain a State Senate seat in Arizona Legislative District 17. McLean is challenging Republican Vince Leach.
In a statement to AZ Free News in early August, Leach warned, “John McLean is going to have to defend the actions of the Democrat party both at the state level and the national level. He owns the damage to the state of Arizona by Governor Katie Hobbs, and also the radical policies that President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris are inflicting on our country. If voters elect McLean to office, that will help the Democrats take over the state legislature, which means that taxes will increase, school choice will disappear, and commonsense election laws will be reversed.”
One Arizona Republican is thinking about improvements to the state’s infrastructure in the intermission between legislative sessions.
This week, State Senator David Farnsworth issued a press release, announcing his intent to look for “responsible ways to financially support necessary improvement projects with future legislation for a smoother commute down the road.”
Farnsworth shared that “according to the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), current funding from all state and federal sources only allows for the repaving of about 1% to 2% of all lane miles per year. As a result, these surfaces are only receiving necessary rehabilitation every 50 to 100 years! In 2012, pavement conditions on nearly 60% of ADOT’s statewide road system were classified as ‘good.’”
The release added, “However, ADOT reported that number has consistently dropped over the years, and in 2022, just 29% of pavement conditions were classified as ‘good,’ while 65% were classified as ‘fair,’ and 6% as ‘poor.’ According to ADOT’s estimate, in order to just maintain a ‘good’ classification for only 29% of the state’s lane miles, repaving would need to increase to 5% of all lane miles annually, costing an additional $1 billion.”
“Maintaining our transportation system should be a top government function, but this principle has fallen by the wayside for many years, creating a bumpy and hazardous drive for hardworking Arizonans and the truckers bringing goods into our state,” said Senator Farnsworth. “While we’ve seen vast technological advances in the automotive and trucking industries over the past decade, we’ve also witnessed a mass migration of new residents to Arizona, and with the evolution of the electric vehicle, there has been increased wear and tear on our roads requiring immediate attention. It’s critical we take a deep dive into potential policy reforms in the coming months to enhance the funding stream for our transportation system to function as necessary and appropriate.”
Senator Farnsworth serves as his chamber’s Transportation Committee chairman.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
The Arizona Republican Party has filed a lawsuit in the state Supreme Court against Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs challenging the constitutionality of her Executive Orders 2023-23 and 2023-25. The orders designated state-owned facilities, including those managed by the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry (ADCRR) and the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC), as ballot drop-off locations and ordered state authorities to make voter registration forms available and process them respectively.
Republicans, under AZGOP Chair Gina Swoboda, stated that the new orders rip away authority held by county recorders and other local election authorities.
In the text of the lawsuit, the AZGOP argues, “Governor Hobbs unlawfully exercised her office by attempting to establish voting locations, drop-off locations for completed ballots, and make ADCRR and ADJC, as well as other state agencies, de facto public assistance agencies, which is outside her lawful authority.” They note, “The Arizona law is clear on who can distribute and accept voter registration forms and completed ballots: (1) public assistance or disabilities agencies as defined by statute; or (2) a location/agency as designated by a county recorder (or designee of a county recorder) or justice of the peace. The Governor is nowhere included in this clear line of authority. The same is true for determining voting locations.”
In a statement provided by the AZGOP to AZ Free News, Swoboda wrote,
“Governor Hobbs’ actions represent a blatant overreach of her authority and a direct violation of the separation of powers established by our Constitution. The responsibility for designating voting and ballot drop-off locations, as well as handling voter registration, lies squarely with the Legislature and county officials, not the Governor. These executive orders undermine the trust Arizonans place in their electoral process, and we will not stand by as our constitutional rights are trampled.”
Political commentator George Behizy observed Thursday, “Similar measures were taken in Michigan by Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who designated various state agencies to do the same.” He added, “Hobbs’s orders blatantly violate Article 1 Section 4 Clause 1 of the US constitution which clearly states, ‘The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof[.]’ The constitutional delegates ALL election oversight to the state legislatures. It doesn’t grant the executive any power to delegate random government departments as vote registration sites or ballot drop-off locations.”
BREAKING: Arizona Republicans have just filed a lawsuit against illegitimate Governor Katie Hobbs for issuing unconstitutional executive orders to facilitate the steal of the 2024 election
The US Constitution as referenced by Behizy states, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing(sic) Senators.”
A state Governor or Secretary of State’s ability to enact such measures remains unadjudicated and was the subject of the 2020 Election challenge Texas v. Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan & Pennsylvania which the U.S. Supreme Court, in one of its most controversial historic decisions, declined to hear. The case divided the states with twenty supporting Texas’ claim, twenty supporting Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, and six states undecided.
The Texas complaint similarly revolved around three major points:
“Non-legislative actors’ purported amendments to States’ duly enacted election laws, in violation of the Electors Clause’s vesting State legislatures with plenary authority regarding the appointment of presidential electors.
Intrastate differences in the treatment of voters, with more favorable allotted to voters – whether lawful or unlawful – in areas administered by local government under Democrat control and with populations with higher ratios of Democrat voters than other areas of Defendant States.
The appearance of voting irregularities in the Defendant States that would be consistent with the unconstitutional relaxation of ballot-integrity protections in those States’ election laws.”
Should the case be taken up by the Arizona Supreme Court and adjudicated, it could serve as a basis for a federal ruling to settle the question nationally that was left ambiguous in 2020.
