During the most recent election for the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board, one slate of candidates campaigned on fiscal responsibility, academic excellence, parental rights, school safety, and a simple message: Just be honest.
That vision sounds appealing, but it doesn’t reflect where things stand today. For students and parents in SUSD, the reality has fallen short.
Unfortunately for the SUSD community, the three board members elected in the last election have lived up to their promise to “protect SUSD,” meaning protect Superintendent Scott Menzel.
Look at the records of Pittinsky, Sharkey and Lewis. What meaningful policy or solutions to any of the issues in SUSD have they offered? They haven’t. They only attack Member Carney and Member Werner when they make a proposal. Dr. Lewis is basically useless letting Menzel run the show. Pittinsky, Sharkey and Lewis don’t seem to understand that Menzel works for them, and they work for the SUSD community.
SUSD is close to reaching a point of no return. And it may not survive another year of Menzel and this governing board.
Elections have consequences.
A review of the past few months shows just how bad things have gotten in SUSD.
Despite repeated assurances about transparency, open communication, and a willingness to listen, Dr. Menzel has failed to consistently follow through. Keeping the community fully informed and being honest with the SUSD community when it matters most, has often been lacking during Dr. Menzel’s tenure as superintendent.
It’s also worth remembering that during his tenure at SUSD, Dr. Menzel has been cited by the Arizona Attorney General’s Office for multiple violations of the state’s Open Meeting Law. For those who want to review it themselves, see Az Attorney General Opinion I24-004.
As a recent example of Menzel struggling with the truth, during the SUSD Governing Board Regular Meeting 1/6/2026 (@1:23:53 – 1:24:13), explaining what he had said to parents at Copper Ridge and Cheyenne, Dr. Menzel said, “…it made sense to move quickly to get feedback…[Emphasis added]”
Fast forward to SUSD Governing Board Meeting 3/10/2026 (@1:32:20 -1:32:41), where Dr. Menzel told the board that at the meetings with the Phase II families, “…the surveys would go out after we identified the three options to get feedback on what’s possible. So that would likely be late May, early June after the committee gets the chance to do its work [Emphasis added].”
Not only did Menzel tell two different stories about what he told the parents, but he conveniently left out that once the committee completes its work on May 7th, the community will be surveyed, and that feedback will then be filtered and evaluated by District team members. (See slides 6 & 7 SUSD Phase II Design Advisory Team Meeting 1 March 26,2026.)
The results will then be presented to the Governing Board in October for a final decision. By that point, after the District staff has “vetted” the input, it’s hard not to expect recommendations that align with Menzel’s stated goal of “disrupting and dismantling” and reducing the footprint of SUSD.
The discussion at the board meeting on December 9, 2025, offers a revealing look at the kind of leadership guiding SUSD. The SUSD Governing Board Regular Meeting 12/9/2025 is particularly informative if you want to understand who sits on the board and how they approach transparency and community input. While I’ve highlighted a few key moments below, it’s worth listening to the full exchange on forming advisory committees, from the 1:12:36 mark to 1:32:26.
It’s also important to remember that the three newest board members were elected on the strength of their professional backgrounds and extensive experience in public education. The current board president has even been recognized as a superintendent of the year. Yet, based on this discussion, there are questions about their grasp of core aspects of Arizona law and parental rights in education.
Dr. Menzel, for his part, brings a long career in public education. He is clearly experienced in navigating these conversations, often speaking at length while offering few direct answers to the concerns raised by the community. Menzel is much more of a politician than a school superintendent.
The last time Dr. Menzel appears to have spoken most candidly about who he is may have been during his tenure as superintendent of Michigan’s Washtenaw Intermediate School District. On May 14, 2019, he participated in an interview with WISD employee David Spitzel titled, Public Schools and Social Justice: An Interview With Dr. Scott Menzel, which was published on June 7, 2019, about a year before the SUSD Governing Board hired him in 2020.
It’s worth reading that interview. It provides insight into his views on equity, inclusion, and social justice, and offers context for his stated goal of “disrupting and dismantling” SUSD.
That interview was available to the Board prior to his hiring. Either it wasn’t carefully reviewed, raising questions about the thoroughness of the vetting process, or it was reviewed and aligned with what the Board was seeking at the time. Based on the Board’s actions since Menzel’s hiring, the latter seems more likely.
As if his focus on gender identity, social emotional learning (SEL), DEI and the lack of attention to academics haven’t done enough damage to SUSD with its declining enrollment resulting in a $8M-$9M budget shortfall, now he is, with the full support of the progressives on the Board, closing schools.
Elections have consequences.
On April 29, 2025, SUSD staff presented to the Governing Board, reporting a continued decline in district enrollment, which they attributed to factors outside of the district’s control, while at the same time ignoring the feedback from parents who have left the district citing issues that are within the control of the district but are not being addressed (Strategic Enrollment Planning Study Session, slides 29 – 31).
Based on this trend, they projected a budget shortfall beginning in fiscal year 2026–2027. This meeting also marked the first time the Governing Board formally discussed the potential need to consider school closures.
Despite the commitments Dr. Menzel made in his message on the SUSD website titled School Repurposing and Enrollment Review, the process has not unfolded in that manner.
He stated:
“As we work through this process, it is important to remember that while district leadership may bring forward recommendations, the Governing Board makes the final decisions. We are committed to keeping you informed, listening to your input, and ensuring transparency every step of the way.”
— Dr. Scott A. Menzel, Superintendent
Follow the link to the site and note how, even after months, significant portions still read “coming soon.” The page continues to state that a Phase II Design Team is being developed, even though the team has already met multiple times. Under Community Engagement, the site highlights a “commitment to transparency and open communication,” which raises an important question: why were so many parents, and even Board members, surprised by the proposed closures of Echo Canyon and Pima schools?
Listening to comments from parents of those schools during fall Board meetings, it is difficult to reconcile their experiences with claims of transparency and meaningful engagement.
On October 7, 2025, the Board voted to schedule the legally required public hearing on school closures for November 13, 2025. Then, on December 9, 2025, the Board narrowly approved, by a 3–2 vote, the closure of Echo Canyon and Pima Schools as Phase I of the District’s plan to address the projected budget shortfall.
On November 18, 2025, after the public hearing and less than 30 days before the vote to close two schools, Dr. Menzel presented his vision for a “vibrant and thriving SUSD,” outlining a two-phase approach (and a potential Phase III) to addressing the deficit. Phases I and II are focused on reducing the SUSD footprint. Phase I included the closure of Echo Canyon and Pima. Phase II proposed additional closures, including Redfield and Laguna, along with boundary and school reconfiguration changes involving Cheyenne Traditional School, Copper Ridge, Desert Canyon ES and MS. The presentation, A Vibrant and Thriving SUSD: Reducing our footprint to increase our impact, is available for review.
“So, on October 7th, I voted no to scheduling the public hearing regarding the potential closure repurposing of Echo and Pima because I believe that one of the things we should have done first before going down that road or this road of closures and repurposing was to create a board advisory oversight committee to gather data, have community input and weigh in on solutions.”
Her full comments can be heard from 1:12:36 to 1:15:25.
The Board then continued its discussion, with Member Sharkey asking at approximately 1:16:34 what Member Carney was requesting. He stated:
“It’s my understanding, and correct me if I’m wrong, if this is a board committee that really limits the communication, it’s subject to open meeting law the same as we are as opposed to a much more interactive committee, so I just want to make sure what I’m hearing [Emphasis added].”
This raises an important question: what does “much more interactive” mean? A board committee that operates under Arizona Open Meeting Law, where meetings are publicly noticed and open to attendance, or a superintendent-appointed committee operating outside that structure? Member Carney clarified her concerns at 1:16:58 –1:17:32:
“I’m asking for a board advisory committee. We’ve had superintendent committees that came to this conclusion tonight and we don’t even know who was on them or what work was done on them. I’m asking for a board advisory committee that the public is also asking for so that everyone can be involved, everyone has input and we can come to solutions together.”
Dr. Menzel then responded, explaining the distinction between committee types at 1:17:49–1:18:14:
“…that any committee established by the Board is subject to open meeting law, which means all of the agendas have to be posted 24 hours in advance, it’s got to follow all of those rules in terms of reporting of the minutes and that process. It is perfectly acceptable as an alternative, but it slows the process down in part, you can be more nimble with the superintendent-appointed committee [Emphasis added].”
When asked about transparency differences between the two models, he added at 1:18:50–1:19:17:
“So, all of the information that’s collected is still subject to public records request, so that would be available to the public.”
However, access through public records requests is not the same as attending meetings, hearing deliberations in real time, or participating in an open process.
Board President Dr. Lewis then suggested a possible “solution” to the problem. The problem she is trying to solve is whether or not to meet their legal obligations and responsibilities under the open meeting law or continue has they did in Phase I and hide what they are doing from the public. Listen to her comments at 1:19:20–1:19:38:
“So, in the name of flexibility and expediency, and being able to work as a superintendent’s committee keeping minutes and expressing those minutes more transparently might be the solution [Emphasis added].”
She continued at 1:20:58–1:21:17:
“…so, if committees are formed at our suggestion for the work to be vetted and we say it’s a superintendent’s committee, and there’s a posting of welcome … please try and get on this committee with us, we could help advocate for committee members without it blurring the lines.”
Later in the discussion, Member Werner noted at 1:24:26–1:25:35 that:
“Clearly, our community and families and staff have been blindsided, and this process has not been effective…”
Member Pittinsky also acknowledged confusion about the committee distinctions but stated:
“…do I believe that we should have more mechanisms for the community to be involved in the decisions that will follow tonight’s vote, whichever direction it goes as well as the decisions that are ahead? Absolutely.”
That comment can be heard at 1:26:00–1:26:39.
Pittinsky always talks but he does nothing to make anything happen. Rather than offering any kind of ideas to turn his words, (“more mechanisms for the community to be involved”) into action, he just pushes back on Member Carney.
Elections have consequences, and the current direction of SUSD reflects the outcome of those choices.
The governing board now operates with a progressive majority that has supported Superintendent Menzel’s approach to restructuring the district and closing schools. A Phase II Design Committee has already begun meeting outside of public view, with its findings expected to be reviewed by district staff before being presented to the Board in October.
Those recommendations are anticipated to align with the Phase II framework outlined in Menzel’s presentation, “A Vibrant and Thriving SUSD: Reducing our footprint to increase our impact.”
“This team will guide the development of a comprehensive strategic plan designed to increase enrollment across all CLC schools and strengthen academic outcomes for all students. The work of the Design Team will help ensure that the Coronado Learning Community remains strong, sustainable, and focused on student success.”
This raises a broader question: if increasing enrollment and strengthening programs across CLC is a goal, why not make it a goal for the entire district? Why were proposals centered on school closures and consolidation prioritized before broader district-wide alternatives were fully explored?
Members Carney and Werner have argued that school closures should be a last resort and have advocated for earlier, more inclusive evaluation of alternatives, including district-wide strategies to increase enrollment and stabilize schools.
For many in the community, that contrast highlights a concern about process and priorities, particularly whether all viable options are being fully considered before decisions are made.
Elections have consequences, and those consequences are now playing out in how these decisions are being shaped and implemented.
SUSD needs a change in leadership.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
When Dr. Menzel was hired as Superintendent of Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD), he arrived with a stated goal: to disrupt and dismantle what he believed were systems denying access and opportunity to students of color, students in poverty, and students with IEPs.
But was that truly the reality in SUSD before his arrival?
Regardless, Menzel has moved forward with exactly that approach, disrupting and dismantling the district. His emphasis on initiatives like gender identity and social-emotional learning, often at the expense of academic performance, has produced troubling results: school closures, declining academic outcomes, falling enrollment, record levels of non-classroom spending, teacher layoffs, and increasing staff turnover.
Disrupt and dismantle.
At the November 18, 2025, board meeting, Menzel outlined reductions in FTE staff at the district office over the past three years, arguing that all reasonable cost-cutting measures have been exhausted, leaving school closures as the only remaining option.
But is that really true?
When board members Amy Carney and Carine Werner raise concerns about wasteful spending or request detailed financial information, they are often ignored or told that staff are too busy to provide answers. Meanwhile, the expenditures they question are dismissed as not necessarily wasteful just because they disagree with them.
Not only has Menzel shown little interest in cutting favored programs or non-essential spending unrelated to improving academic performance, but he has also failed to address concerns raised in exit interviews, concerns that could help slow declining enrollment.
Disrupt and dismantle.
At a recent board meeting, it was announced that more than 130 applications had been submitted for the Phase II Design Team. Selections are underway, with the first meeting scheduled for March 26.
Menzel noted that Matt Pittinsky was the only board member to suggest closing more than two schools in Phase II. When asked by Menzel for input from the board about additional closures, Mike Sharkey responded that if the committee recommends closing three schools instead of two, “that’s great”—despite having campaigned on not closing schools. He added that committee members can “feel it out as it goes along” and gauge community reaction afterward.
Carney argued that school closures should be a last resort; Pittinsky disagreed, despite also campaigning against closures. He now claims more schools must be closed to maintain a “quality student experience.” But is this the same “quality” that has coincided with declining enrollment and revenue losses?
Carney pressed for early parent input through surveys, with Werner agreeing that community feedback should come at the beginning, not the end, of the process. Menzel, however, stated surveys would occur only after the committee completes its work, likely in late May or early June. Pittinsky, Sharkey, and Lewis supported that timeline.
While district leadership claims to value community input, their actions suggest otherwise. The committee is not being asked to explore solutions to the budget shortfall; they are being steered toward a predetermined outcome: closing schools.
For those who haven’t followed closely, the public comments from last fall’s board meetings tell the story. Parents from schools like Pima and Echo Canyon described being blindsided by closures, with little to no input. Even some board members indicated they were excluded from meaningful involvement.
According to the district, the Phase II Design Team members will “help inform discussions about enrollment trends, school facilities, and long-term sustainability through respectful, student-centered collaboration.”
But what does that actually mean?
A small group, selected by Menzel and guided by a district-paid consultant, is expected, over just a few weeks, to analyze years of enrollment data, financial trends, and demographic projections, and then “inform” district decisions.
Is that realistic?
So, what will this design team actually do?
In all likelihood, it will just validate decisions that have already been made by Menzel.
Over recent meetings, Menzel has presented Phase II “repurposing solutions.” One proposal involves relocating Cheyenne Traditional School (CTS) to Copper Ridge. He describes this as an opportunity to place a high-demand program in an underutilized facility with room for growth.
However, what goes unaddressed is the likely impact on enrollment. Moving CTS to the northernmost part of the district could drive families away, not attract them. CTS draws students from across the district, many within walking or biking distance of its current location. Relocating it would add significant travel time, potentially up to 20 extra miles per day for some families.
How many parents would make that commute? How many would instead leave CTS or SUSD altogether?
Similarly, how many Copper Ridge families would choose CTS or be willing to move to the Desert Canyon schools, or simply leave SUSD? These are critical questions, but they remain unanswered.
They could be answered now through parent surveys. Instead, feedback is being delayed until after decisions are effectively finalized.
If enrollment drops following a relocation, as seems likely, the result could be the eventual closure of CTS, the district’s last remaining traditional school, which could lead to even further declining enrollment and financial shortfalls for SUSD.
And that would align with Menzel’s stated goal: disrupt and dismantle.
Parents at Phase II schools should make their views known by contacting the Board and Menzel, using Let’s Talk, writing opinion pieces, participating in PTO meetings, and sharing information with parents through newsletters and social media. Don’t wait until decisions are final; speak up now. Community input is important.
Don’t let Menzel continue to disrupt and dismantle SUSD.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
Over 1,500 individuals want the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) to remove one of its board members for criticizing an overweight health official.
Board member and state senator Carine Werner made the comments during a presentation by Nutritional Services Director Patti Bilbrey at a board meeting last month. It appears Werner intended to make the comments to herself, but her remarks were caught on a hot mic. Werner was attending the meeting remotely.
“This is what I have to listen to,” said Werner. “She’s in nutrition services and she’s like morbidly obese.”
Werner also uttered the comment “chub” amid some indiscernible audio.
General Mills Foodservice has recognized Bilbrey as the only “trayblazer” in Arizona — one of around 40 nationwide — for her innovative approaches to feeding students.
A coalition of mainly progressive parents and community members say Werner, who chairs the Senate Education Committee, had committed fat-shaming in conflict with board policy. Werner has previously caught the ire of this coalition of parents for pushing to rid SUSD of books advancing DEI and LGBTQ+ ideologies.
An organization, Swing Left, organized a protest to demand Werner’s resignation during the September 9 board meeting. Around 50 individuals showed. Werner was absent, as was board president Donna Lewis.
Public comment focused on Werner’s remarks from last month’s meeting.
Shea Najafi, an SUSD parent and progressive activist organizer who founded Scottsdale Women Rising, has led efforts to recall Werner. Najafi is gathering signatures to hold a recall campaign, which would require around 4,000 signatures.
“It was deplorable. We couldn’t believe she called a beloved district employee ‘Chubs’ during a presentation in which she was speaking about how we can feed kids during the summer,” said Najafi.
Najafi and others seeking Werner’s recall plan to attend the October 7 meeting with TV crews in tow.
“You’re f****d, Werner,” wrote Najafi in a Facebook post.
SUSD governing board vice president Mike Sharkey, who Najafi and other progressives support, disclosed that he asked legal counsel whether Werner could be censured over the remarks. According to Sharkey, counsel advised the board couldn’t act in that manner.
Sharkey then read aloud a pre-written statement to the protesters.
“I do not condone the conduct of the board member given what I heard at the board meeting on August. 5. I know what I heard, but only the speaker can know why she said what she said,” said Sharkey during the September 9 meeting. “This behavior does not reflect the board member ethics as adopted in policy nor is it representative of SUSD’s core values.”
Yet, Sharkey later admitted in a statement to The Progress that he didn’t hear what Werner said at first. It was only after he reportedly received an email containing Werner’s remarks that he understood what had been said.
“I heard crosstalk at the original August 5 meeting but didn’t comprehend what was said,” said Sharkey.
Scottsdale Unites for Educational Integrity stated that an AI analysis of the board meeting audio compared to prior board meetings indicated the audio had been enhanced to make Werner’s comments audible. Those who attended the meeting in person reported not hearing Werner’s commentary.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Following multiple complaints regarding the social studies curriculum recently approved by the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board on May 13, the Arizona Department of Education launched a formal investigation. On Wednesday, June 11, Arizona State Superintendent Tom Horne held a press conference to announce the findings. He stated that he would report to the federal government that SUSD violated a statement they signed saying they would not teach Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) content.
Horne clarified that his comments were directed at what he called the three “woke” members of the SUSD Governing Board who voted in favor of the curriculum. Superintendent Scott Menzel responded to this characterization, arguing it was unfair and uninformed—particularly without a full review of the 1,250-page textbook. He called such labeling “a problem from his perspective.”
While finding a common definition of “woke” is a bit of a challenge, most would agree that it originally meant being aware of social injustices, particularly around race, and it was rooted in activism. The term has now evolved into a broader often vague term for hyper-awareness of social issues. Critics often say it is dogmatic overreach where someone pushes rigid beliefs or ideologies beyond reason, imposing them on others without flexibility or evidence.
So, is it fair to describe these board members as “woke”?
Board Members Past
When Member Sharkey first announced he was running for the board, he said it was because of the rise in the parents’ rights movement (rights codified in Arizona Revised Statues), which he blamed (without citing any evidence) for the issues plaguing SUSD. He rejects the idea that parents are best positioned to make educational and healthcare decisions for their children, asserting that trained professionals know better. Sharkey’s reluctance to recognize these rights suggests a troubling approach to governance that may not prioritize parental input nor respect their legal parental rights.
Dr. Donna Lewis, SUSD Governing Board President, ran on her years of educational experience, including being selected as the national superintendent of the year during her time at the Creighton School District. Her academic record leaves a lot to be desired with 13% of her students proficient in ELA and 8% in math the year she was selected. Additionally, her leadership style has been criticized for creating a hostile and toxic environment, prompting a formal public apology from a school board member after her departure.
Then there is Dr. Pittinsky, another education professional and an expert in public education with 25 years’ experience. Someone who only publicly revealed the conflict of interest with his business ties with SUSD after he was called out. Someone who thinks so highly of SUSD that he put his kid in a private school rather than SUSD.
All three of these board members ran on “protecting SUSD” and Menzel and his “woke” curriculum of DEI, SEL, and gender identity. So far, they have shown themselves to be a predictable rubber stamp for whatever Menzel wants.
Dogmatic overreach?
Superintendent Menzel’s Past and Controversial Remarks
Superintendent Menzel previously led Michigan’s Washtenaw Intermediate School District, where he emphasized equity, inclusion, and social justice. In an interview before leaving Michigan, Menzel described white supremacy as deeply embedded in the fabric of American society, stating that acknowledging it offers a chance to “dismantle, disrupt, and recreate something that’s socially just and more equitable.”
These comments drew sharp criticism from Arizona GOP legislators, who labeled his statements as divisive and inappropriate for someone in public education.
So, is it proper to label the three board members as “woke”?
I’ll let you draw your own conclusion.
Curriculum Content and Allegations of Bias
In addition to Horne, Maricopa County Sheriff Jerry Sheridan also raised concerns about the new social studies curriculum and the anti-police messages they contain. Examples of anti-police rhetoric include textbook passages noting that “several police killings caused the nation to grapple with systemic racism,” and “Black Lives Matter activists and others argue that the deaths of many Black people were the result of institutional racism.” The text also mentions that Black men are statistically more than twice as likely to be killed by police than white men.
Critics argue these lessons present a one-sided perspective and fail to encourage critical thinking. For example, the curriculum omits key facts in controversial cases, such as the Department of Justice findings in the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, Missouri, which concluded that Brown did not have his hands up and was engaged in a physical altercation with the officer trying to take his gun. Likewise, the curriculum does not mention a Harvard study that reportedly found no racial bias in police shootings after examining hundreds of cases.
Menzel has denied that the curriculum is anti-police or promotes indoctrination, insisting it encourages critical thinking and offers diverse perspectives. However, critics argue the content leans more toward ideological teaching than balanced education. Indoctrination, they argue, is defined by presenting only one viewpoint without room for discussion or dissent—contrary to the principles of real education, which promote inquiry and evidence-based analysis.
Again, don’t take my word for it, see for yourself:
Given the content of the curriculum, the past actions of the board members, and Superintendent Menzel’s own public remarks, it seems labeling the board members and even Menzel as “woke” is appropriate.
When Menzel tells you he would never use an anti-police curriculum or that he is promoting critical thinking among students, or there is no evidence to support any of the claims against the curriculum, don’t believe him. He is lying and trying to gaslight you.
It is incumbent on all of us concerned about the future of SUSD to contact the Governing Board members and tell them to withdraw the approval of this radical curriculum. Any purchase orders placed to procure the materials should be canceled.
SUSD is facing difficult financial challenges caused by declining enrollment, a result of Menzel’s failed policies. Continuing down the path of implementing this curriculum will not only serve to accelerate the declining enrollment but put millions of federal dollars at risk. With the loss of the federal money, can school closures be far behind?
Menzel can continue to lie and push back against the federal government, but he is playing a high-risk game, a game he is likely to lose. He is putting the future of SUSD in jeopardy to satisfy his own ego.
The Governing Board needs to seriously consider replacing Menzel before he completely destroys SUSD.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
The Scottsdale teachers’ union has endorsed three candidates for the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board, emphasizing their extensive experience as education professionals. While their expertise may seem impressive to some, the pressing question remains: does SUSD need more so-called experts on the Board, or do we require individuals who prioritize common sense, academic excellence, and respect for parents’ rights?
Under the current leadership of Dr. Menzel, an education expert, the SUSD has experienced a troubling decline in academic performance and significant student and staff turnover. Despite promises by the experts that social-emotional learning (SEL) would improve academic educational outcomes, the reality has been disappointing. Not only has academic achievement not improved but it has declined during his tenure.
Dr. Menzel and the experts on the Board, who rubber stamp everything he wants to do, not only have a dismal academic record but have caused over 2,200 students to leave SUSD along with record-high staff turnover.
Some studies and reports suggest that SEL is harming the emotional and mental health of students. The shift in spending away from teachers and to more social workers and counselors further drives down academic performance.
The three endorsed candidates—Dr. Donna Lewis, Matt Pittinsky, and Michael Sharkey—have questionable records that raise concerns about their suitability for the Board, but they also promise to “protect SUSD” and Menzel, ensuring the continued disruption and dismantling of the District.
Dr. Lewis has highlighted her accolade as the national superintendent of the year during her time at the Creighton School District, claiming she improved schools from Cs, Ds, and Fs to As, Bs, and Cs. However, she conveniently omits that only 13% of students were proficient in English Language Arts (ELA) and just 8% in math during her celebrated year. Additionally, her leadership style has been criticized for creating a hostile and toxic environment, prompting a formal public apology from a school board member after her departure.
Matt Pittinsky, another candidate with 25 years in education, has been less than forthcoming about his business ties to SUSD. One of his companies provides services to the district, a fact he only revealed after being confronted publicly. This raises serious questions about his transparency and the potential conflicts of interest in his role as a board member. Furthermore, his acceptance of over $10,000 in out-of-state campaign contributions, primarily from CEOs of companies that sell to schools, adds another layer of concern. What motivations could these out-of-state contributors have for influencing a local election?
Michael Sharkey, who has over 20 years of experience in education, has publicly linked his candidacy to the rise of the parents’ rights movement, which he blames for many of SUSD’s current issues. Sharkey asserts that the “book bans, cultural wars, and dysfunction” that are plaguing SUSD are due to the parents’ rights movement.
He rejects the idea that parents are best positioned to make educational and healthcare decisions for their children, asserting that trained professionals know better. This stance is contrary to the Arizona Revised Statutes, which enshrine parental rights in the Parent’s Bill of Rights. Sharkey’s reluctance to recognize these rights suggests a troubling approach to governance that may not prioritize parental input nor respect their legal parental rights.
Despite Sharkey’s recent claims of wanting to engage with families and welcome their input, it’s important to note that initial statements often reflect true beliefs. His previous rhetoric implies a preference for limiting parental involvement and allowing “experts” to take charge of children’s education and healthcare.
You also must ask yourself why a school board member, who should be focusing on academics, would be involved in making healthcare decisions for the students. Again, Arizona law leaves it up to the parents.
This upcoming election presents a critical choice: we can either “protect SUSD” and continue down the path of endorsing more educational experts who have failed to deliver results and are harming children, or we can elect board members who demonstrate common sense, a focus on academics, and a commitment to respecting parents’ rights. Candidates like Gretchen Jacobs, Jeanne Beasley, and Drew Hassler embody these qualities, promising to be responsible stewards of our tax dollars while prioritizing the safety and educational needs of all students in SUSD.
It’s time for a change that puts our children’s future first.
Mr. Williams is a longtime Scottsdale resident, businessman, grandfather, and the parent of an SUSD graduate.
