Gilbert awarded a $17,000 contract for a survey to a political consulting firm that Mayor Brigette Peterson used during her election campaign last year. During the campaign, Peterson paid a total of $9,530 to the firm, Camelback Strategy Group, for consulting and social media services.
Camelback Strategy Group doesn’t have any public record or advertisement of surveys completed prior to the one conducted for Gilbert. The closest thing that the firm offers to surveys is through their affiliated – but independent – company, Grassroots Advocates. However, that company only offers political data and strategy services like voter contact, door to door canvassing, phone-banking, sign set-up and delivery, signature gathering and validation, tracking and blocking – and according to email records obtained by AZ Free News, Grassroots Advocates didn’t complete the survey. Camelback Strategy Group did.
It is unclear how Camelback Strategy Group came to be selected to conduct the survey. Peterson’s spokesperson told AZ Free News that the mayor wasn’t involved with the transportation bond poll conducted.
We also reached out to Camelback Strategy Group for comment. They didn’t respond to AZ Free News by press time.
The survey was conducted through a phone poll. Based on email records between Camelback Strategy Group Partner Chad Heywood and Deputy Town Manager Leah Hubbard, the survey canvassed approximately 350 Gilbert residents and took about a week to complete.
The survey was completed about 6 weeks prior to the council vote on whether to place the transportation bond on the ballot. The council voted in favor of the transportation bond at the beginning of June, 5-2. Council Members Aimee Yentes and Laurin Hendrix both voted against the measure.
Although the council vote on the bond occurred over two months ago, the fact that the mayor’s political consulting firm received around $17,000 to conduct a survey stood out to constituents enough for it to be discussed during Tuesday’s council meeting.
Public commentary tied the $17,000 survey to the several open investigations against Peterson concerning issues like work environment and ethics complaints.
One resident, Jim Torgeson, said he was disappointed with the council for not holding Peterson accountable.
“Judgment includes those multiple ethics complaints, optics of favoritism – with no efforts to correct those – optics of racism, the optics of quid pro quo, the optics of hostile work environments, the optics of a poorly-run high school clique council. The mayor won’t fix it. I’m asking you to fix it,” said Torgeson. “The last thing I need to think of is that people are awarded contracts because they’re political consultants that worked on the mayor’s campaign, awarded $17,000 to do a phone poll. A phone poll, and they don’t even do phone polls.”
The public became further incensed when Peterson opened discussion on a proposal to overhaul public commentary protocols. Instead of 3 minutes for every person with up to 15 minutes of speaking time unless the council decides on an extension, the mayor proposed that she should be the sole decision-maker on who could speak and for how long.
The mayor’s opponent, Matt Nielsen, spoke up about this proposed rule change during the meeting. He reminded the council that America is still a constitutional republic, and said that the mayor was trying to control public commentary because of the ongoing investigations against her.
“The fact that [this proposal] has come before the council at all is further evidence that Mayor Peterson is more committed to the preservation of her own public image in light of multiple recent alleged ethics violations than she is with the American ideal of civic engagement in government,” stated Nielsen. “It’s a terrible look for our town’s top elected official to allow a consolidation of power to herself relative to the speech of Gilbert citizens when she is under heavy scrutiny for multiple serious allegations.”
The council members questioned Peterson’s intent and rationale for introducing the rule change.
Peterson responded that the proposal wasn’t borne out of “malicious” intent, but that she was simply trying to rewrite the code to match years of council operations. Despite her explanation, the council didn’t appear to back the proposed changes as written.
Council members motioned to table the proposed rule change.
Questions have been raised about a private law firm’s handling of a campaign finance violation investigation involving the Town of Gilbert’s recent mayoral race, while others are asking why the law firm was involved in the first place.
Last week an attorney with Fitzgibbons Law Offices reported to Gilbert Town Attorney Chris Payne that legal sufficiency does not exist to establish a violation of state election law with respect to dozens of campaign-related signs, despite a finding by the Phoenix City Clerk earlier this year of “reasonable cause” to believe a campaign finance violation occurred.
The law firm’s decision appears to have been made without reviewing bank records of the parties involved nor speaking to additional witnesses, a fact not sitting well with many in Gilbert and Maricopa County who support election integrity.
On Nov. 11, 2020, the Town of Gilbert received a complaint related to dozens of signs put up around town that were critical of Matt Nielsen, who lost to former city councilwoman Brigette Peterson in a mayoral runoff race.
Based on citizens’ statements and a private investigator’s report, none of the signs included “paid for by” or “authorized by” verbiage. Nielsen filed a campaign violation complaint alleging the Public Integrity Alliance Committee, headed by Tyler Montague, was involved with the anti-Nielsen signs. Public records show the committee was actively involved in supporting Peterson’s campaign.
The City of Phoenix handled the initial phase of the violation review to avoid the conflict of interest of having Gilbert town staff involved. In February, the Phoenix City Clerk announced there was “reasonable cause” to believe a campaign finance violation was committed in connection to the signs that Montague admitted paying for in cash and picking up at a print shop.
The second phase of the campaign finance complaint would normally have involved Town Attorney Chris Payne reviewing the reasonable cause report from the City of Phoenix in order to determine which state law had been violated.
However, town officials once again declared a conflict because Payne and his staff work at the pleasure of the town’s mayor and council. Instead of asking the Phoenix City Attorney or the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office to handle the second part of the investigation, town officials hired a private law firm to do the work; a law firm which needs to rely on Peterson’s approval for future business with the town.
During its investigation, attorneys for Fitzgibbons had access to a statement Montague provided the City of Phoenix in which he described seeing several of signs laying on the ground while driving by a polling place at the Gilbert Recreation Center on Nov. 3, Election Day.
According to Montague’s statement, he replaced four or five of the signs even though he did not originally place those signs. He also said he saw a woman remove the same signs he had just replaced and told her it was illegal to take down political signs without authorization.
The woman previously told a private investigator that the man told her she was committing a misdemeanor and she should not touch” his” signs. The man was identified as Montague through his license plate. He told the Phoenix clerk that his activities were not an operation of the Public Integrity Alliance Committee.
Once retained, a Fitzgibbons attorney issued a subpoena in March to the print shop where the anti-Nielsen signs were printed. In response, an invoice in Montague’s name was provided by the printer, who said Montague ordered and paid for the signs with $500 cash.
A subpoena was also issued to Montague seeking “all information related to the purchase of any signs pertaining to the 2020 election for the Mayor of the Town of Gilbert that reference Matt Nielsen. Such information shall include, but not be limited to, the name and contact information for any vendor that made such signs, purchase orders, receipts, wording included on the signs and any images of the signs.”
Montague replied again that the anti-Nielsen signs were not funded by himself or the Committee. He explained that the printer’s invoice ended up in Montague’s name only because he “volunteered to pick up those up for a friend who funded them. Public Integrity Alliance was not involved in any way.”
It should be noted that the invoice numbers for both Public Integrity Alliance’s sign purchases, as well as the order numbers for both purchases are sequential, indicating that the signs had been ordered at the same time and paid for at the same time.
In a July 6 report to Payne, Fitzgibbons attorney Tina Vannucci noted that ARS 16-925(A) states a “person that makes an expenditure for an advertisement or fund-raising solicitation, other than an individual, shall include [certain] disclosures in the advertisement or solicitation…”
Vannucci noted “there is not legal sufficiency” to establish that Montague acted in his capacity as President of the Committee, or on behalf of the Committee, or that the Committee purchased the signs at issue in the Complaint which were not properly labeled.” And because the statute specifically exempts individuals from the “paid for by” or “authorized by” language, if Montague was responsible for the signs at his own volition then he cannot be charged with the violation.
What is not mentioned in the Fitzgibbons report is whether Montague was asked who the “friend” was in the event that person was acting on behalf of a committee or other organization. In addition, there was no subpoena issued for bank records belonging to Montague and the Public Integrity Alliance Committee which may have revealed whether Montague received or requested reimbursement or petty cash for the anti-Nielsen signs.
The next meeting of the Gilbert town council has not been confirmed. It is unclear whether any formal action on the campaign complaint is necessary by the council, although the town will have to approve a bill at some point from Fitzgibbons for legal services.
According to Mayor Brigette Peterson, the Gilbert Town Council should reconsider offering $75,000 of taxpayer money annually for employee sex changes. The motion failed in a council meeting last week. After the vote, Peterson indicated that the sex change surgery – referred to as ‘gender-affirming surgery’ – would return to committee for review in the future.
Currently, the town benefits cover therapy and hormone treatments.
Councilmember Aimee Yentes spoke up first on the issue. She said she supported the 3 percent premium increases, but not the sex change surgery.
“I think those are policies that deviate from other positions we’ve taken as a community that delve more into social policy rather than strictly providing medical[ly] necessary benefits to our employees,” said Yentes.
Vice Mayor Yung Koprowski only spoke up to mention she’d vote for adding sex change surgery coverage only to align with Affordable Care Act (ACA) industry standard.
Councilmember Scott September said he concurred with Yentes’ assessment.
The question of necessity for such coverage came into play. Councilmember Laurin Hendrix asked the human resources representative, Deputy Chief People Officer Kristen Drew, if any applicants within the past 5 years had refused to apply for or accept employment because the town didn’t offer sex change surgery coverage.
Drew said there hadn’t been any such applicants.
Despite this history, the mayor claimed that not offering this surgery would be a deal breaker for employees in the future. She also urged the council to be more open-minded, to set aside their own values.
“At some point, it might become an issue and we’ll show that this community is forward-thinking, and there are times that we need to make the tough decisions that may not always align with our own thought process when it comes to our personal choices or our political choices or our religious choices, even but we put Gilbert in a position that provides for whatever the future may hold[,]” said Peterson. “I’m going to encourage our council members to be open-minded in this benefit and look to this community moving forward where we can be strong and handle situations like this that come forward and we’re faced with.”
In an interview with AZ Free News, Hendrix raised several points of contention about the added coverage and the mayor’s perspective. He stated that a sex change surgery is cosmetic – not a true health need.
“I see health insurance for health needs. And I don’t see this as a health need. It’s a cosmetic surgery by choice. I don’t see any reason that taxpayers should have to pay for that,” said Hendrix. “They were comparing it to autism syndrome at the meeting. You don’t wake up in the morning and think [you have autism]. That’s not something where you have a choice. The two are not similar.”
Hendrix said he doesn’t have an issue with people having the surgery. Rather, Hendrix said he doesn’t want taxpayers to have to foot the bill for it.
Further, Hendrix assessed that this benefit could be an incentive for people to take an underemployed job just for the surgery – and then leave after they got it.
It was Peterson’s request to council before the vote that stuck out to Hendrix the most.
“The mayor’s comments at the end were shocking. We have to ‘get past’ our moral values, our standards? But what else would I base my vote on, if I’m going to put aside my family values, my moral values, religious values, or personal standards? What’s my vote based on? What’s left? I gotta base my vote on something,” said Hendrix. “I hope she bases her vote on something other than who paid into her campaign.”
Councilmembers voted unanimously for the 3 percent premium increases, but the motion to add sex change surgery coverage failed 4-3. Yentes, September, Hendrix, and Scott Anderson voted against the measure. The Vice Mayor, Mayor, and Councilmember Kathy Tilque voted for it.
