The Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board held its regular meeting on February 11th. And it was significant for several reasons.
Most notably, the District’s Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Maintenance & Operations and District Additional Assistance Projections were presented. (You can view the presentation and hear the discussion on the budget projections starting a little after the 1:08 mark of this video.)
From the budget presentation, it’s clear that the SUSD’s financial troubles are largely due to declining enrollment. The average daily membership (ADM), which tracks enrollment, is used to determine state funding, including Proposition 123. Under Dr. Menzel, enrollment has consistently dropped. As of February 2025, enrollment stands at 19,367, which is a decrease of 390 students from last year, which was down 355 from the previous year. Over the past seven years, enrollment has fallen by 13%, from 22,608. Dr. Menzel has been superintendent since July 2020, and despite receiving a bonus every year and a pay raise with a contract extension, he has failed to meet any of the academic performance goals set by the Board.
Could the decline in enrollment be due to the dismal academic performance under Dr. Menzel?
Last year, in SUSD, 8,100 students were not proficient in English-Language Arts (ELA), 9,400 were not proficient in math, and over 12,000 were not proficient in science. Yet over 98% are passed on to the next grade or graduate. Unfortunately, this is not an anomaly, but the continuation of a trend at SUSD.
Across all SUSD 5th graders, there are an average of 300 students who are highly proficient in either ELA, math, or science. That means over 1,100 5th graders are not highly proficient. And 600 of those are not even proficient in either ELA, math, or science, yet they will be passed on to middle school.
At Coronado High School, 74% of the students are not proficient in reading, and 83% are not proficient in math, but 89% will graduate in 4 years. How can that be? Is this what Dr. Menzel means when he says SUSD is providing a future-focused, world-class education? What kind of future is he focused on for those students?
The District’s CFO, Shannon Crosier, did offer a “silver lining” to the enrollment decline, noting that staff reductions could help cover part of the projected budget shortfall—$1.2 million of the anticipated $2.9 to $4.2 million deficit (depending on Proposition 123)—and maintain the ratios as established by the Board. I guess that was the good news. But if enrollment is down, doesn’t that mean lower class sizes and a better teacher-to-student ratio? Why is that a bad thing? Why lay off teachers? Answer, Dr. Menzel doesn’t want to make meaningful cuts to District staff.
Both Ms. Crosier and Dr. Menzel pointed out that 85% of funds are allocated to schools, leaving only 15% for district-level expenses. As a result, the budget proposal includes the elimination of only 12 district-level FTE positions. However, according to them, meaningful budget cuts will also require eliminating 20 FTE school-level positions and 3 assistant principal positions.
When Board Member Carney questioned the impact of these cuts, especially considering the 59 instructional positions cut in the 2024 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, while adding 71 student support positions and 44 support and administration positions, Ms. Crosier promised to investigate the matter further. This trend of reducing instructional staff while maintaining student-teacher ratios amid declining enrollment seems to be continuing.
Member Pittinsky attributed the enrollment decline to changing demographics, a low capture rate (only about 50% of eligible students attend SUSD), and what he called systemic issues. He argued that without addressing these issues, the situation would remain unchanged. He added that without changes in the expense structure, 12 months from now we would be doing this again.
Changing the expense structure is one way to deal with the problem, but it doesn’t tackle the root cause of the declining enrollment.
Citing demographic changes and systemic issues as reasons for enrollment loss seems like a convenient excuse, especially when the key questions remain unanswered: Why are students leaving SUSD? Why is the capture rate so low? Perhaps Pittinsky, who chose Brophy over SUSD for his child, could shed some light on that.
It’s concerning that no one at the meeting seems willing to discuss the root cause of the declining enrollment. Could it be tied to the District’s poor academic performance, combined with the focus on social-emotional learning, gender identity, hiring social workers while laying off teachers, and Dr. Menzel’s broader efforts to disrupt and dismantle SUSD?
Why not address the expense structure right now? Cutting 12 staff positions for next year only represents 3% of the district’s staff, which doesn’t seem like a significant reduction. Why is no one questioning what district staff are doing? For instance, what purpose is served by the 13 FTE in Desegregation? Or the 13 FTE working on State and Federal Titles I, II, and V? How about the 10 working on Student Information? Do we need 7 FTE in the Communications Department and another 7 in Community Education?
Member Pittinsky also asked when the Board would be able to inject their values into the budgeting process. Dr. Menzel’s response, as usual, was long-winded and didn’t fully answer the question. But I’d ask Member Pittinsky: why not act now? You’ve acknowledged the need for an expense structure change. As a Board member, you have the power to ask tough questions about district staff activities and direct Ms. Crosier to prepare a budget based on substantial cuts to district-level staff. Again, do we need 13 FTE in Desegregation? Dr. Menzel claims they leave no stone unturned to tackle the problem, but I remain skeptical.
We should also be mindful of potential cuts to government funding, both state and federal, especially in light of President Trump’s executive orders on education. If these cuts materialize, the impact on the District could be significant.
This was just the first budget meeting, and more details will be presented on February 25th and March 4th. The proposed budget will be presented to the Governing Board on June 10th, with a public hearing and adoption scheduled for June 24th.
The June 10th meeting is a regular meeting, meaning public comments will be allowed with a two-minute time limit. A two-minute time limit will likely also be enforced during the public hearing on June 24th, with the Board voting to adopt the budget immediately after the hearing.
This is all by design. Dr. Menzel put together the budget with little to no input from the Board or the public. Then he presents it when there is very little time to make changes. Scheduling the public hearing just before the Board votes allows Dr. Menzel to say he is following the law, without getting public input in a meaningful way into the budget. He doesn’t care what the public thinks.
That’s why parents and anyone concerned about the direction of SUSD must speak up or ask questions directly to the District staff and Dr. Menzel. Inquire about what each department is doing and then ask yourself—and the Governing Board—whether we can afford to continue funding these activities. Then ask yourself if Dr. Menzel and his team have truly left no stone unturned.
If you care about the education of SUSD students, you need to speak up and let the Governing Board and Dr. Menzel know what your concerns and priorities are. Remember, they work for you!
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
The Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board approved a bonus of nearly $16,000 to its superintendent during an August board meeting, despite lower test scores. And during last week’s meeting, it approved another performance pay plan for the 2024-2025 school year.
Superintendent Scott Menzel will receive a bonus of over $15,700, despite not achieving any of the academic achievement goals for the 2023-2024 school year. Menzel has a base salary of $225,000, a $16,000 stipend, and opportunity for a 20 percent bonus (around $43,200).
That full 20 percent bonus hinged on accomplishing the 11 key performance indicators the board set for the 2023-2024 school year. Menzel accomplished five of the 11 goals, none of which were academic: increased attendance rate to 92.5 percent or better, increased percent of students participating in extracurricular and cocurricular activities by four percent; increased certified staff retention; established a baseline for work-based learning opportunities and hours completed using Major Clarity; and produced decision-making matrix and at least one proposal for action by June 30.
The academic-based performance pay goals that Menzel didn’t meet concerned increasing scores for third-grade English-Language Arts (ELA) students to 68 percent passing, eighth-grade math students to 53 percent passing, and ninth-grade science students to 41 percent passing. During the 2023-2024 school year, only 60 percent of third-grade ELA students passed, 46 percent of eighth-grade math students passed, and 34 percent of ninth-grade science students passed.
The governing board was divided over the new performance pay plan. Board President Libby Hart-Wells and members Zach Lindsay and Julie Cieniawski voted in favor, while members Amy Carney and Carine Werner abstained.
During the meeting, Carney questioned why there was no board discussion prior to Menzel’s proposed performance plan pay raise being included as an action item on last week’s agenda.
“Last [year] we had a lengthy discussion [and] came to a collaborative result, and then we had an action item later,” said Carney.
Hart-Wells didn’t deny that the procedure for proposing a superintendent pay raise plan had changed from last year, but said that Carney and other members were free to discuss the action item and propose changes.
“It has always been the case that the superintendent has drafted the goals based on the information provided by the board and the goals that were set related to the key performance indicators for the district, then that comes forward to the governing board for review,” said Menzel.
During that same meeting last week, the board’s budget presentation revealed that SUSD spending on classrooms and teachers would hit a historical low again for the 2024-2025 school year: 54 percent versus nearly 64 percent exactly 20 years ago per the auditor general. That is one percent away from the lowest fiscal year: 53 percent in 2017.
As the parent watchdog group Scottsdale Unites For Education Integrity said in a recent press release, “This 9.2 percent decrease means that, out of a $438 million budget, over $40 million has been redirected away from supporting students’ academic achievement.”
Correction: A previous version of this story said thatMenzel’s bonus was approved last week. It was approved in August while the performance pay plan was approved last week. The story has been corrected.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Since becoming President of the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board, Dr. Libby Hart-Wells has increasingly displayed hostility toward her fellow Board Members Amy Carney and Carine Werner.
At nearly every board meeting, Hart-Wells repeatedly interrupts and reprimands Members Carney and Werner, stifling any discussion or differing viewpoints, and repeatedly insists they stay on topic by saying “not on the agenda” whenever they attempt to ask a foundational question concerning an agenda item. This effectively curtails any potential for meaningful dialogue before it can begin.
Hart-Wells’ response to criticism is notably defensive, as evident in numerous board meetings throughout the year. Her authoritative and viewpoint-intolerant leadership style was particularly evident at the June 25th board meeting, where, knowing that Member Lindsay would not be present—a reliable progressive vote—she declined to include agenda items requested by Member Carney, despite a board policy that gives each board member an equal right to include agenda items for discussion.
Furthermore, during a public hearing at that meeting on the fiscal year 2024-2025 expenditure budget, Hart-Wells not only cut off Member Carney but also interrupted my public comments as well.
The agenda for the meeting specified that the board would hold a public hearing on the adoption of the SUSD proposed fiscal year 2024-2025 expenditure budget, in accordance with A.R.S. §38-431.02 and A.R.S. §15-905(D)(E).
A.R.S. §38-431.02 is often referred to as Arizona’s open meeting law (OML) and, as Dr. Hart- Wells should know because the former Attorney General successfully sued SUSD on this very issue just two years ago over the mask mandate debacle, the OML applies to “public hearings” just like any other board meeting.
A.R.S. §15-905 pertains to school district budgets, and subsection (D) mandates that the governing board must conduct a public hearing to present the proposed budget and explain it upon request of any person.
SUSD is a large district. The budget is not insignificant. The proposed fiscal year 2024-2025 expenditure budget totals $437,700,168 and before the board approved it, they were obligated to explain it to the public.
In line with Arizona law, I chose to address the board and seek clarification on the budget. However, just as she does with board members who bring up uncomfortable topics (for her), Dr. Hart-Wells repeatedly interrupted me during my discussion with staff who were explaining the budget, as required by law. At one point, she even turned off my microphone, effectively halting my comments. Under the OML, board members cannot simply interject and interrupt speakers during public comment. But as usual that doesn’t stop this district from doing things their own way and gaslighting parents if they object.
Dr. Hart-Wells, after breaking off my comments, insisted that discussions should focus strictly on “the proposed M&O budget for next school year” despite the public notice stating the purpose of the hearing was the adoption of the entire fiscal year 2024-2025 expenditure budget, not solely the M&O section of the budget.
Furthermore, the expenditure budget summary, as presented, explicitly mentions the ESSER funds. Therefore, discussing ESSER funding during the hearing, as I was trying to do, is directly relevant to the budget and “on topic.”
Dr. Hart-Wells had the audacity (and lack of self-awareness) to say publicly that she would “appreciate it” if I followed the state laws, yet her actions appear to violate both Arizona’s open meeting law and A.R.S. §15-905(D). Restricting meaningful discussion on pertinent budgetary matters outlined in the public notice and summary provided by the District is a clear violation of state law. By statute, the board is obligated to explain the budget – to the people who pay the taxes to support that budget. In this mandatory duty, she failed.
If you share my frustration with the way the Governing Board has been operating, continuously violating OML, disrespecting the rights of the public, preventing meaningful discussions on critical topics, and rubber-stamping Superintendent Menzel’s failing agenda, and if you believe our children deserve better, I urge you to vote for change this November. Let’s elect Jeanne Beasley, Drew Hassler, and Gretchen Jacobs to the SUSD school board. These candidates are committed to supporting parental rights, academic excellence, fiscal responsibility, and school safety.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) failed to pass a gender-neutral bathroom policy during its special meeting on Tuesday night.
The board tied 2-2 in their vote on the policy, which would have established single-stall, gender-neutral bathrooms or provided designated employee restrooms for students unwilling or unable to use a multi-occupancy restroom. The bathroom policy came about after allegations that some SUSD schools were allowing restroom access based on gender identity and not biological gender.
Board member Amy Carney and Vice President Carine Werner voted for the policy, while board members Libby Hart-Wells and Zach Lindsay voted against it. Board President Julie Cieniawski wasn’t present at the meeting, so she didn’t vote.
Hart-Wells said that the “how” and “why” of the policy were problematic: the cost and the implementation. Hart-Wells said that available district data proved that site administrators were already handling the .001 percent of student requests for bathroom accommodations.
In closing, Hart-Wells indicated that some parents were the greater danger to children, but didn’t expand further.
“The proposal puts forth a bastardization of parent’s rights at the very expense of the very students’ rights that this proposal purports to support. The operational reality of this proposal can — whether intended or not — put some children in harm’s way. And yes, tragically, that harm can come from the home,” said Hart-Wells. “This proposal, in my view, does not represent healthy governance.”
Werner responded that supportive parents have indicated to her that it was about the children, not about the adults.
Werner requested the new policy. The proposed financial impact would’ve been about $70,000 total: five restrooms per school, with each restroom estimated to cost $500 each.
“I’m certain that kids’ academic achievement is affected when they feel like they can’t use the restroom,” said Werner.
Some parent and community activists expressed grievance over the rejection of the policy.
The SUSD bathroom accommodation policy failed in a 2-2 vote last night, with Hart-Wells claiming that involving parents hurts students' rights and puts children in harm's way. https://t.co/WcALn8dCfvpic.twitter.com/bMQiIWvNJY
— Scottsdale Unites for Educational Integrity (@ScottsdaleUnite) October 25, 2023
Over the summer, Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed legislation similar to SUSD’s failed policy. The bill, SB1040, would have required students to have the option to access a single-occupancy or employee restroom or changing facility.
Hobbs declared that such accommodations were discrimination against LGBTQ+-identifying minors.
“SB 1040 is yet another discriminatory act against LGBTQ+ youth passed by the majority at the state legislature. [I] will veto every bill that aims to attack and harm children,” said Hobbs.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
This school year, Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) incorporated controversial RFID chip trackers in student and faculty ID badges.
The district approved the chips in a close 3-2 vote in late June. Board members Libby Hart-Wells, Zach Lindsay, and Julie Cieniawski approved the chips; Amy Carney and Carine Werner opposed them. The estimated cost of the chips totaled $125,000.
The chip went through a trial run at Coronado High School before being implemented districtwide. The district reportedly upgraded their ID software to enable the chip system over the last two years.
During the June meeting, the SUSD governing board counsel explained that the chips enable the district to track students when they get on and off the buses.
Carney asked why the chips were put in all student IDs, and not just bus riders. The SUSD Safety & Security team, which will oversee the program, explained that buses aren’t limited to designated bus riders: any students may board the buses if they’re attending the Boys & Girls Club, field trips, or extracurricular or athletic events.
The safety team reported that the IDs can’t be used to track daily attendance because they’re only linked to the district’s transportation software. However, the team didn’t guarantee that the chip technology wouldn’t be expanded to other uses such as attendance in the future. The RFID chips within staff badges have an extra feature: they enable access to school buildings.
SUSD reported that the RFID chip doesn’t store any personally identifiable information, and that no RFID readers were installed inside the school for the purpose of tracking a student’s location.
Director Joshua Friedman said that the RFID chip translates as a coded number within a closed system, and therefore doesn’t qualify as a digital ID. Friedman also noted that the RFID chip doesn’t work as an active GPS tracker, but a passive one: the chips only record a time and location when a student boards or disembarks from a school bus.
Board President Julie Cieniawski remarked in closing that she and the majority of SUSD leaders weren’t interested in “conspiracy theories” of using RFID technology for ulterior motives.
Some SUSD parents have expressed concern with the tracking capabilities of the RFID chips, namely the inability to opt-out from the technology and potential suspensions for tampering with the IDs by attempting to remove the chip.
🚨🚨@ScottsdaleUSD does it again! After 3-2 board vote, SUSD implements RFID chip cards without parental consent. Suspension if tampered with. No opt-in. No opt-out. pic.twitter.com/P5nCUTWHnr
— TheLegalProcess (v2.0 | Post-Election Ed) (@ALegalProcess) August 13, 2023
Former state lawmaker and SUSD teacher Michelle Ugenti-Rita wrote on Facebook that the RFID chips were an invasion of privacy.
“Have they never heard of ‘Find my iPhone?’ This is a complete invasion of privacy. Parents were never notified, or given the option to opt-in to the school district’s new government surveillance program,” said Ugenti-Rita. “What didn’t they learn from masking up our children during COVID? This is something our superintendent, Tom Horne, should investigate and the Legislature should ban when they convene next year.”
No opt-out exists for families who desire to forgo use of the chips. RFID, short for radio-frequency identification, is a technology that allows scanners to engage in automatic identification and data capture (AIDC). AIDC allows for computers to obtain data immediately without human involvement; other types of AIDC include QR codes and voice recognition technology.
During last week’s meeting, Superintendent Scott Menzel said that the chip readers enable the district to locate students using school transportation. Menzel reported that on the first day of school, three children didn’t arrive at their proper location. The superintendent reported that the ID system enabled them to locate them within five minutes, as opposed to 30 minutes or more.
In response to community pushback against the chips, SUSD issued a press release on Monday to further explain the RFID software.
“RFID is not a global positioning system (GPS) and has no tracking capability on its own. Like the RFID in your credit card and debit card, it only works when tapped. The district piloted this program last year and the Governing Board approved it,” stated SUSD. “The RFID in student ID cards is ONLY scanned so that the district’s Transportation department is able to account for those students who board and exit a bus.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
