Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego continues to govern as a tyrant. Just look at item 37 on the next agenda she set for the November 1 Phoenix City Council meeting. The item calls for the City of Phoenix to accept a grant from a Rockefeller-sponsored entity headquartered in Copenhagen to implement meat consumption mitigation. But it’s not just the item alone that’s the problem.
In the dark behind closed doors, the Mayor of Phoenix told city staff to limit public comment to only 5 agenda items per person. By doing so, she possibly went against city code and violated state open meeting law and her loyalty oath to uphold and protect both the Arizona and U.S. Constitutions.
The Mayor suppressing voices of constituents was imposed without the other city council members being informed. Although this regulation was discovered at the September 6 meeting, city staff admitted at the October 18 meeting that the Mayor is the one who directed them to limit public comment to a maximum of 5 total agenda items per person.
During the Call to the Public at that October meeting, I called out Mayor Gallego for her policy.
Before we delve into the destruction to public opinion that the Mayor’s regulation causes, the Phoenix City Clerk’s site says, “Citizens may… express their views on any published agenda item.” Phoenix City guidelines on public comment say people have the ability to speak for two minutes on agenda items outside of the public comment section.
While the limitation of commenting on 5 agenda items may not sound like a big deal, city meetings can have anywhere between 20-200 agenda items plus a general public comment agenda item. To put that into context, 5 out of 200 items is only 2% of the meeting.
Furthermore, Mayor Kate’s restriction prevents the public from petitioning their elected officials if there are more than 5 agenda items that need public input.
Let’s say there are the following 7 items on the agenda for the next meeting:
Issue a $200 million bond that is backed by raising taxes
Road diets where the city reduces traffic lanes
Mitigation of meat consumption
Implementation of facial recognition technology
Solidifying the 15-minute city framework
Recommitting to red light surveillance cameras
Reducing parking around the city with the goal to get people to stop driving less
A person from the public is limited to speak on only 5 of those 7 items. Furthermore, that person cannot sign up to give public comment, which is protected in city code. Not only does this regulation restrict content from being brought forth by the public, but it also inhibits the ability of the people to petition their elected officials to let them know which way the people desire them to vote on specific policies.
Petitioning the government is protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 2, Section 5 of the Arizona Constitution. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law respecting the right of the people to petition the Government.” The Arizona Constitution also states, “The right of petition, and of the people peaceably to assemble for the common good, shall never be abridged.” Restricting people’s right to petition their elected officials is a direct infringement on both constitutions.
Not only is petitioning the government protected, but content is also protected. The Arizona Attorney General states, “Public bodies may impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speakers, but any content-based restrictions must be narrowly tailored to effectuate a compelling state interest.” The Arizona Ombudsman Guidance further solidifies the opinion from the Attorney General. When discussing what could be a compelling state interest in court of law, the Military Leadership Diversity Commission of the United States Department of Defense states, “Only important, specific goals may satisfy this level of judicial scrutiny.”
As stated at the beginning of this article, the loyalty oath is swearing to protect and uphold both the U.S. and Arizona Constitutions. Because Mayor Kate has won multiple elections, she has sworn multiple times to the loyalty oath. If the oath is found to be violated, the maximum penalty is a class 4 felony and removal from office.
For public bodies and elected officials like those at the City of Phoenix to avoid possibly breaking the law, the Arizona Attorney General says, “The best practice is to decide [public comment changes] in advance [of the meeting] so that speakers have prior notice about the restrictions that the public body has set. In this way, the public body may be able to prevent allegations that it either treated speakers differently or used content-based restrictions.” Mayor Kate’s public comment limitation was not published, not written down, and staff has no idea where it came from other than her mouth.
While we have covered the possible content and petition limitations from the Mayor, another interesting issue stemming from the Attorney General’s recommendations is the potential targeting of specific voters. Since Mayor Kate’s regulation is not written down, it appears the Mayor decided to implement this policy after the June 28 Phoenix meeting. At this meeting, members of the public and Mayor Kate’s 2020 opponent showed up to speak against the Phoenix water rate hikes, water allotment reduction, and mismanagement of funds. It was at the next meeting, after summer break, that the public discovered the 5-agenda-item limitation. It looks like Mayor Kate may be targeting specific speakers and is treating members of the public differently.
Instead of allowing folks to freely express themselves, people like Kate Gallego will do anything to silence anyone in the mission to obtain all the power and control they possibly can. They are tyrants that use their power to implement radical policies and agendas to control others.
Limiting the number of items someone can speak on is way outside the bounds of Phoenix City Code, Phoenix’s public comment guidelines, the Attorney General’s opinion, Arizona state law, Ombudsman Guidance, the Arizona Constitution, and the U.S. Constitution. The Mayor of Phoenix crossed the line with her latest shenanigans by suppressing the voters of Phoenix, and in doing so, denied the city council members from considering their constituents’ views before voting. Kate Gallego has completely disgraced the sanctity of the institution and democracy. This public comment regulation is a violation of the bedrock of our Republic – consent of the governed. By limiting public comment content from her constituents, Mayor Kate exposes her true self. Her policy restricting free speech needs to be abolished.
Further, Arizona state law says, “A member of the public body may not knowingly direct a staff member to communicate in violation of [open meeting law].”
Elected officials and city staff work for us, not the globalist organizations. It’s why they swear an oath to protect and uphold the State and U.S. Constitutions. By restricting the ability to address officials through public comment, Mayor Kate is preventing the people from having the last say to stop bad policies. The Arizona State Legislature needs to take this up, review the open meeting laws, and codify public comment as a guaranteed First Amendment right to guarantee the public can petition their elected officials. In the meantime, we’ll see what happens at the next Phoenix City Council Meeting on November 1.
Jeff Caldwell currently helps with operations at EZAZ.org. He is also a Precinct Captain, State Committeeman, and Precinct Committeeman in Legislative District 2. Jeff is a huge baseball fan who enjoys camping and exploring new, tasty restaurants! You can follow him on X here.
Following in the footsteps of his predecessor (now-Governor Katie Hobbs), Secretary of State Adrian Fontes appears determined to implement an Election Procedures Manual (EPM) that is ripe with unlawful provisions. The EPM is used by election officials throughout the state as the rulebook to conduct and run elections, so it is critically important that every provision in the manual strictly adheres to state law.
Now, fresh off an important legal win over the illegal signature verification process in the EPM, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, along with the Thomas More Society, is suing Fontes once again—this time over unstaffed ballot drop boxes…
An Illegal Method of Voting
Arizona law establishes four different methods for secure early voting. According to A.R.S. § 16-548(A), an early ballot shall either be:
Delivered to the officer in charge of elections, typically the county recorder.
Mailed to the officer in charge of elections, typically the county recorder.
Deposited by the voter at any polling place in the county.
Deposited by the voter’s agent (family member, household member, caregiver) at any polling place in the county.
Did you catch that? Nowhere in the law does it allow for the use of unstaffed drop boxes. In fact, if you read through Fontes’ EPM, you’ll notice something…
As Arizona’s largest public school district, Mesa Unified School District is a critical case study for the future of K-12 funding, particularly in a state that champions competition and choice for its families. Despite headlines boasting of population growth across the state, the nationwide decline in childbirths and cost-of-living increases will weigh heavily on district enrollment and balance sheets for years to come.
While solving these policy issues is admittedly outside the scope of superintendents and governing boards, how districts adjust to these changes remains within their control. In the case of Mesa USD, the district faces an existential crisis in enrollment that will almost certainly require consolidation and closure among its 78 schools over the next 10-20 years. Furthermore, the district’s statewide assessment performance leaves much to be desired, with just 38% and 31% of Mesa USD students achieving proficiency in English Language Arts and Math, respectively.
Next month, Mesa taxpayers will have an opportunity to make their voices heard and rein in the district’s spendthrift ways by rejecting a $500 million bond and an override continuation that, if passed, would allow the already overstretched district to exceed its revenue control limit by 15% for another seven years.
When voters last approved a bond for Mesa USD in 2018, they did so with a margin of <1% and at a cost of $300 million to taxpayers. A year later, the district was beset with allegations of financial impropriety and steep administrative costs, leading to the resignation of the district’s superintendent. The poor transparency on the part of the school board in communicating the issue to the public further underscores the lack of taxpayer accountability. Furthermore, over the last three years, Mesa USD received over $245 million in federal pandemic relief funds, with hundreds of millions still unspent.
Nevertheless, Mesa USD’s pitch to taxpayers remains unchanged, and approval of the bond and continuation of the override will result in little more than throwing away hundreds of millions of dollars in costly capital projects for underutilized campuses and unsustainable personnel costs.
Demography Is Destiny
In the early 2000s, Mesa boasted a population of over 400,000 residents. During the same period, Mesa USD reached its peak enrollment at over 87,000 students during the 2002-2003 school year. Today, the city is home to nearly 510,000 people, yet the city’s population growth over the last 20 years never trickled down to Mesa USD’s enrollment. Today, the district serves fewer students than it did in 1990 when Mesa had just 290,000 residents.
An additional cause for alarm comes from the pronounced decline in Mesa USD’s Kindergarten-6th grade enrollment. For large, comprehensive school districts like Mesa, enrollment in feeder schools is an important signal of a district’s future headcount. Over the last 20 years, 16 of Mesa USD’s elementary schools have lost over 40% of their students. In the same period, the district’s junior high schools saw an average decline of 50% of their enrollment.
Source: Mesa Public Schools – Demographics Report 2021-2022
As another signal of its unpopularity, Mesa USD is one of the state’s largest sources of ESA students, which has its most substantial adoption rates in the elementary grade levels. Given the expansion of ESAs and charter schools, Mesa USD will continue competing for a depleting student pool. In turn, a decline in enrollment necessitates a reduction in operational expenses, which Mesa USD has rebuffed in favor of taxpayer-funded bailouts.
Around 77% of school districts in Maricopa County have one or more overrides in effect. While East Valley voters have typically displayed enthusiasm for K-12 bonds and overrides in the past, the powerful impact of free market principles via ESAs makes the decision different today. With nearly 70,000 Arizona families using ESAs today, enthusiasm for the program has made it larger than any school district in the state, with the additional benefit of not requiring bonds or overrides.
To realize the substantial cost savings from ESAs, a corresponding change is required from public schools in rightsizing their districts by adjusting their property and personnel costs. In preparing for the inevitable, Mesa USD must take steps now to address under-capacity and explore the sale of its real estate before requesting additional funds from taxpayers. In rejecting this bond and override, Mesa voters sidestep a lousy deal and send a clear message about taxpayer accountability.
Arman Sidhu is a lifelong Arizona resident and previously worked in K-12 education as a principal and teacher. He currently leads a nonprofit microschool.
Arizona State University President Michael Crow believes we are in such danger that we should amend the U.S. Constitution to empower the government to deal more expansively with climate change. Dr. Crow’s view that constitutional protections of our liberties should be eliminated when they become inconvenient wouldn’t square with the founders’, but his estimate of the dangers and required remedies for our changing climate are quite mainstream.
“Net-zero by 2050” has become an article of faith among our corporate and academic elites, no longer requiring proof or intellectual defense. The notion that we must eliminate all carbon emissions by mid-century if we want to save the planet is the organizing principle for environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) investing. In 2022, it was mentioned more than 6,000 times in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
The SEC has helpfully proposed climate disclosure rules to help investors “evaluate the progress in meeting net-zero emissions and assessing any associated risk.” Skeptics are sidelined as “climate deniers.”
But mounting scientific evidence suggests that net-zero is wildly impractical and probably not even achievable. In September, the Electric Power Research Institute, the research arm of the U.S. electric power industry (which would seem to be naturally inclined to support proposals which increase reliance on electricity), released a sober report on the practicality of net-zero.
Their study concluded that “clean electricity plus direct electrification and efficiency…are not sufficient by themselves to achieve net-zero economy-wide emissions.” Translation: it can’t be done. No amount of wind turbines, solar panels, battery power, fossil fuel, or other available technologies will achieve net-zero by 2050.
Furthermore, even “deep carbonization”– drastic reductions in atmospheric carbon levels – is an impossible dream. With natural gas and nuclear generation forced to the sidelines, that would require options like carbon removal technologies, which would cost a quadrillion (million billion) dollars, which would…well, you get the picture.
Finally, the report concludes that living in a net-zero world may not be all that great. Supply chains operating only on electricity and the reliability and resiliency of a net-zero electricity grid could be highly problematic.
The response to this nonpartisan and obviously consequential report was silence. There has been essentially no media coverage. No climate activists rushed to dispute the methodology nor challenge the conclusions.
This is a significant tell. You could assume if the eco-activists were genuinely concerned about our climate future, they would have some interest in responding to this major challenge to their assumptions. But they ignored it to cling to their groupthink.
Yet other indications that the transition to renewable fuels is already off the tracks keep coming. The government-certified North American Electric Reliability Corp recently issued its 2022 Long-Term Reliability Assessment. NERC concluded that fossil fuel plants were being removed from the grid too quickly to meet electricity demand, putting us at risk for energy shortages and even blackouts during extreme weather.
But wait, there’s more. PJM Interconnection, a large grid operator in the Northeast, recently released projections indicating it will soon lose 40,000 MW, 21% of its generation capacity. The looming plant closures are mostly “policy driven” by onerous EPA regulations and mandatory ESG commitments.
Renewables, although lavishly subsidized to replace the lost electricity, consistently underperform and will be able to produce, at most, half of the electricity lost. Meanwhile the government is perversely mandating electric vehicles, appliances, and whatever.
Finally, the repeated assertions of settled science were unsettled by 1,609 scientists and professors worldwide signing a “No Climate Emergency” declaration. The document was issued by Climate Intelligence or Clintel, a nonpartisan self-funded, independent organization of scholars whose only agenda is “to generate knowledge and understanding of the causes and effects of climate change and climate policy.”
They point out that there is no basis for claiming an upcoming existential crisis. Carbon dioxide is not primarily a pollutant but a necessary basis for life. Moreover, there is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying natural disasters. Panic is dangerous, with the potential to plunge us into perpetual poverty.
They charge that climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on “self-critical science.” Historians of the future, reflecting on our era of hyper-politicized science, will undoubtedly agree.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
Practicing gun safety is paramount every day of the year, not the least of which is Halloween. On a day when millions of people all across the nation celebrate the holiday by concealing their true identity and intentionally scaring friends and neighbors, those of us who own and carry firearms must be ever more careful and vigilant to keep us all safe.
A day that celebrates imagination and fantasy is the perfect opportunity for people of all ages to dress up as any character that their creativity and resourcefulness will allow. Many costumes include elements of guns, swords, knives, machetes, pitchforks, scythes, and other such implements.
Trick-or-treaters are welcome to visit your home at night and approach your front door with their faces obscured, their hands gloved, and possibly carrying an item resembling a weapon. On any other day of the year, this behavior might warrant a call to 911. However, it might be more difficult to determine the delightful from the truly dangerous on All Hallow’s Eve.
Exercising a few extra layers of preparedness, safety, and caution will help to preserve the fun while protecting your home, your family, and yourself.
#1) Treat every firearm as though it is loaded—even if it is a toy and part of a costume.
Teaching children how to handle every gun as though it is a gun, including toy guns and nerf guns is a great way to begin implementing a safe way to interact with firearms and develop the habit of safety.
#2) Always keep your firearm pointed in a safe direction—even if it is a toy or replica.
Where is a safe direction? This may change depending on your location. If you live in a two-story home or in an apartment that shares walls with another person’s home you will need to be extra aware and diligent in determining a safe direction. One thing is certain, a safe direction never includes pointing a gun at another person or animal, unless that person or animal presents an immediate and imminent threat to your life.
Many of us grew up playing with water guns and squirting one another with both pistol and rifle-shaped toy guns. While this may seem to be harmless fun, on a night like Halloween pointing any toy firearm at people could result in tragic consequences. The time to teach safety is always now. And this holiday is a good time to begin thinking differently about how you model safe behavior with guns.
#3) Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot—not only is this a safety must, it is also the sure sign of a responsibly armed citizen.
Guns do not “just go off” by themselves. Just as knives do not carve a turkey and dishes do not load themselves into the dishwasher on their own, even on a night when ghosts abound. These are all inanimate tools. No firearm can fire until the trigger is pressed.
Keeping your finger off of the trigger will ensure that the gun will not discharge until you are ready for it to do so. Empower yourself and your children with this safety imperative, and you will not only be practicing safety and responsibility, but you will be modeling the behavior of a well-trained gun owner.
#4) Always be sure of your target and what’s beyond it and never point a gun at anything you are not willing to destroy—a sober assessment of any situation when you might feel that a threat is present is always imperative, and the frightful fun of Halloween might present extra opportunities to be both diligent and restrained.
No responsibly armed gun owner ever wants to have to use their firearm to harm another human being. However, the reality is that over 2,500,000 times every year, guns are used to save lives. In the hands of safe, trained, moral, and responsible citizens, guns are very effective tools of self-defense. Additionally, hunting and target practice are widely popular activities in the United States. Being aware and mindful of the threat, animal, or target you intend to fire upon is vital to good aim, but equally important is what is beyond what you are aiming at. If your aim is not true or if the projectile you fire penetrates beyond where you intended it could inadvertently harm innocent bystanders. On Halloween, when the streets are filled with children and families we must be aware of the added elements and responsibilities inherent in carrying a firearm for self-defense.
A day of fanciful costumes and dressing up can offer opportunities to both practice safety and teach new skills to keep you and your children safe. While enjoying the frights and fun, safety must be at the forefront of your thoughts. Following these universal rules of firearms safety will help keep you and your loved ones safe, on Halloween and every day.
Cheryl Todd has an extensive history of being a Second Amendment Advocate. Along with being a Visiting Fellow for the Independent Women’s Forum, she is the owner of AZFirearms Auctions, Executive Producer & Co-Host of Gun Freedom Radio, the founder of the grassroots movement Polka Dots Are My Camo, and the AZ State Director for the DC Project.
For the Democrats and their sycophant media allies, the problem is always too much parental choice in education and letting taxpayers keep more of their hard-earned money. Yet this narrative couldn’t be further from the truth. A closer look at Arizona’s budget and the projected budget deficit reveals that we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem…
Projected Budget Shortfall Is a Spending Problem
Just 5 years ago, the legislature enacted the FY 2019 budget that included $10.1 billion in on-going spending, plus $500M in “one-time” expenditures ($10.7 billion total). By last year, that number had exploded to nearly $15 Billion in ongoing spending, a 50% growth in ongoing spending in 5 years! The most recent budget negotiated with Democrat Katie Hobbs earlier this year kept ongoing spending at a lower trajectory but included “one-time” outlays that brought the total budget cost to $17.8B…
