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.
Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) voted Tuesday to halve its public meetings for the upcoming school year, reducing special meetings to every other month. The reduction results in a five-meeting difference from this year to the next.
Superintendent Scott Menzel said that the changes arose after several board members had indicated that their meetings required more work than the board should have to handle, and that public meetings ran too long. Menzel said he initially opposed proposed reductions to the calendar. However, Menzel said he countered with the currently-adopted calendar: a “hybrid” solution that took away five public meetings.
“I didn’t think it would be possible to go to one meeting a month, for multiple reasons. One reason is that there are statutory deadlines that we would miss if we only had one meeting a month,” said Menzel.
Vice President Carine Werner opposed the measure. She said it saddened her that there were complaints from her fellow members about the amount of work they had to do, and that the proposed changes hurt transparency. Werner pointed out that they haven’t even discussed all of the work they needed to do under the current schedule with more meetings.
“I understand it’s a lot of work, but it’s also part of everyone’s jobs, just like it’s our jobs to be here to do the work that our governing board does,” said Werner.
Transparency has been a hot-button issue for the SUSD community over the last few years. Just last summer, the district opted to publish the names of those who file public records requests, but redact educators’ names. The push for greater transparency has come in the wake of discoveries that SUSD allowed and defended educators promoting sexualized and race-focused agendas in the classroom.
Werner added that she found it interesting that fellow board members wanted to reduce meetings, yet was willing to add meetings for the academy attended by administrators.
“I can only imagine the amount of work that’s gone into creating the academy and then fulfilling the work for the 40 applicants that get elected to participate in the program,” said Werner.
Werner also noted that parents and community members had expressed grievances over the proposed calendar change.
— Scottsdale Unites for Educational Integrity (@ScottsdaleUnite) May 3, 2023
Board member Amy Carney pointed out that, by that point in Tuesday’s meeting, they’d been there two hours discussing key issues — an opportunity not possible in the adopted schedule with fewer meetings.
“We’ve got a lot of work to do. I can’t understand how we can cut meetings,” said Carney. “One of the critical places for school boards to work, to retain informed trust of the communities is the conduct of meetings.”
Carney asked whether SUSD had ever cut meetings this drastically. Menzel said he wasn’t aware, deferring to Board President Julie Cieniawski. Cieniawski said that, in the past, the board had held more non-public meetings.
Cieniawski also claimed that the addition of town halls were sufficient for the reduction of public meetings.
“This isn’t anyone’s voice being limited or taken away,” said Cieniawski.
Cieniawski contended with Carney’s insistence that the changes would erode community trust, and claimed that community trust came from engagement with local schools, not the board.
Carney attempted to respond to Cieniawski, who ignored and spoke over her and filed a motion to vote on the calendar. Board member Libby Hart-Wells, who appeared remotely for the meeting, seconded Cieniawski’s motion.
Menzel said that regular meetings should concern core business of the district, and that this calendar would free up the board to voluntarily call special meetings with at least 24-hour notice to focus on specific issues as needed. Menzel noted that he didn’t believe special meetings should take place every month, either.
“I don’t see the calendar as taking away from being able to conduct the work of the district, I think it actually enhances and keeps us focused in a way that the current calendar drifted away from, with the way the schedule is at the present time,” said Menzel.
Hart-Wells said she hadn’t heard any concerns from the community about the meeting restructuring.
Arizona law only requires school boards to have a minimum of one meeting per month.
Watch discussion of the board meeting reduction here:
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
