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.
A Paradise Valley Unified School District (PVUSD) governing board member is alleging the district violated open meeting law to determine school closures and redraw boundary lines.
In a letter to the Arizona Attorney General on Tuesday, PVUSD Governing Board Member Sandra Christensen accused district leadership of violating state open meeting law with several secretive committees that she says didn’t function to advise the superintendent as purported but had, in fact, functioned to deliver policy recommendations to the governing board. Christensen urged prompt action from the attorney general, citing a potential upcoming vote on Thursday to shut down and redraw boundaries for certain schools based on recommendations from at least one of these committees.
Specifically, Christensen brought up the School Closure and Boundary Review Committee, which conducted seven meetings from last April through November, all closed to the public and originally absent any agendas or meeting minutes. The committee consisted of some community members, including PVUSD teachers, support staff, administrators, central office administrators, and parents, and was led by assistant superintendents Jill Baragan and Steve Jerras.
Christensen expressed concern that the district used this committee to deliberately hide “controversial” discussions on school closures and boundary changes not only from the public, but the governing board itself.
“The Paradise Valley Unified School District must cease these unlawful practices,” said Christensen. “These practices are clearly intended to avoid public scrutiny by refusing to allow members of the public to attend said meetings and refusing to supply detailed meeting minutes to the PVUSD governing board or members of the public.”
Christensen said that the committee meetings yielded recommendations for the governing board regarding the potential closures of four schools and boundary changes to 12 schools, on which the board took action in December by scheduling a public hearing last month. Christensen was the only board member to oppose the recommendations, under concern that the committee had violated open meeting law.
“It is clear that the team is designed to advise the board regarding matters on only the governing board can make such as the recommendation of school closures,” said Christensen.
The School Closure and Boundary Review Committee wasn’t the only committee formed over the years in violation of open meeting law, according to Christensen.
“The Paradise Valley Unified School District has a history of these types of violations under the guise of superintendent committees that are not administrative in nature, they are advisory committees to the board that deliberately circumvent Open Meeting Law to shield controversial topics or information from the public,” said Christensen.
Christensen cited another superintendent advisory committee, a bond committee, which met from last January through April to craft recommendations on a bond, as well as a “secretive,” ongoing community legislative network, which Christensen said has met “for many years” to discuss legislative bills with a lobbyist.
According to Christensen, PVUSD Superintendent Troy Bales denies that the committees have ever been more than administrative in nature.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego continues to govern as a tyrant. Just look at item 37 on the next agenda she set for the November 1 Phoenix City Council meeting. The item calls for the City of Phoenix to accept a grant from a Rockefeller-sponsored entity headquartered in Copenhagen to implement meat consumption mitigation. But it’s not just the item alone that’s the problem.
In the dark behind closed doors, the Mayor of Phoenix told city staff to limit public comment to only 5 agenda items per person. By doing so, she possibly went against city code and violated state open meeting law and her loyalty oath to uphold and protect both the Arizona and U.S. Constitutions.
The Mayor suppressing voices of constituents was imposed without the other city council members being informed. Although this regulation was discovered at the September 6 meeting, city staff admitted at the October 18 meeting that the Mayor is the one who directed them to limit public comment to a maximum of 5 total agenda items per person.
During the Call to the Public at that October meeting, I called out Mayor Gallego for her policy.
Before we delve into the destruction to public opinion that the Mayor’s regulation causes, the Phoenix City Clerk’s site says, “Citizens may… express their views on any published agenda item.” Phoenix City guidelines on public comment say people have the ability to speak for two minutes on agenda items outside of the public comment section.
While the limitation of commenting on 5 agenda items may not sound like a big deal, city meetings can have anywhere between 20-200 agenda items plus a general public comment agenda item. To put that into context, 5 out of 200 items is only 2% of the meeting.
Furthermore, Mayor Kate’s restriction prevents the public from petitioning their elected officials if there are more than 5 agenda items that need public input.
Let’s say there are the following 7 items on the agenda for the next meeting:
Issue a $200 million bond that is backed by raising taxes
Road diets where the city reduces traffic lanes
Mitigation of meat consumption
Implementation of facial recognition technology
Solidifying the 15-minute city framework
Recommitting to red light surveillance cameras
Reducing parking around the city with the goal to get people to stop driving less
A person from the public is limited to speak on only 5 of those 7 items. Furthermore, that person cannot sign up to give public comment, which is protected in city code. Not only does this regulation restrict content from being brought forth by the public, but it also inhibits the ability of the people to petition their elected officials to let them know which way the people desire them to vote on specific policies.
Petitioning the government is protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 2, Section 5 of the Arizona Constitution. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law respecting the right of the people to petition the Government.” The Arizona Constitution also states, “The right of petition, and of the people peaceably to assemble for the common good, shall never be abridged.” Restricting people’s right to petition their elected officials is a direct infringement on both constitutions.
Not only is petitioning the government protected, but content is also protected. The Arizona Attorney General states, “Public bodies may impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speakers, but any content-based restrictions must be narrowly tailored to effectuate a compelling state interest.” The Arizona Ombudsman Guidance further solidifies the opinion from the Attorney General. When discussing what could be a compelling state interest in court of law, the Military Leadership Diversity Commission of the United States Department of Defense states, “Only important, specific goals may satisfy this level of judicial scrutiny.”
As stated at the beginning of this article, the loyalty oath is swearing to protect and uphold both the U.S. and Arizona Constitutions. Because Mayor Kate has won multiple elections, she has sworn multiple times to the loyalty oath. If the oath is found to be violated, the maximum penalty is a class 4 felony and removal from office.
For public bodies and elected officials like those at the City of Phoenix to avoid possibly breaking the law, the Arizona Attorney General says, “The best practice is to decide [public comment changes] in advance [of the meeting] so that speakers have prior notice about the restrictions that the public body has set. In this way, the public body may be able to prevent allegations that it either treated speakers differently or used content-based restrictions.” Mayor Kate’s public comment limitation was not published, not written down, and staff has no idea where it came from other than her mouth.
While we have covered the possible content and petition limitations from the Mayor, another interesting issue stemming from the Attorney General’s recommendations is the potential targeting of specific voters. Since Mayor Kate’s regulation is not written down, it appears the Mayor decided to implement this policy after the June 28 Phoenix meeting. At this meeting, members of the public and Mayor Kate’s 2020 opponent showed up to speak against the Phoenix water rate hikes, water allotment reduction, and mismanagement of funds. It was at the next meeting, after summer break, that the public discovered the 5-agenda-item limitation. It looks like Mayor Kate may be targeting specific speakers and is treating members of the public differently.
Instead of allowing folks to freely express themselves, people like Kate Gallego will do anything to silence anyone in the mission to obtain all the power and control they possibly can. They are tyrants that use their power to implement radical policies and agendas to control others.
Limiting the number of items someone can speak on is way outside the bounds of Phoenix City Code, Phoenix’s public comment guidelines, the Attorney General’s opinion, Arizona state law, Ombudsman Guidance, the Arizona Constitution, and the U.S. Constitution. The Mayor of Phoenix crossed the line with her latest shenanigans by suppressing the voters of Phoenix, and in doing so, denied the city council members from considering their constituents’ views before voting. Kate Gallego has completely disgraced the sanctity of the institution and democracy. This public comment regulation is a violation of the bedrock of our Republic – consent of the governed. By limiting public comment content from her constituents, Mayor Kate exposes her true self. Her policy restricting free speech needs to be abolished.
Further, Arizona state law says, “A member of the public body may not knowingly direct a staff member to communicate in violation of [open meeting law].”
Elected officials and city staff work for us, not the globalist organizations. It’s why they swear an oath to protect and uphold the State and U.S. Constitutions. By restricting the ability to address officials through public comment, Mayor Kate is preventing the people from having the last say to stop bad policies. The Arizona State Legislature needs to take this up, review the open meeting laws, and codify public comment as a guaranteed First Amendment right to guarantee the public can petition their elected officials. In the meantime, we’ll see what happens at the next Phoenix City Council Meeting on November 1.
Jeff Caldwell currently helps with operations at EZAZ.org. He is also a Precinct Captain, State Committeeman, and Precinct Committeeman in Legislative District 2. Jeff is a huge baseball fan who enjoys camping and exploring new, tasty restaurants! You can follow him on X here.
The Pima County Democrats may have violated open meeting law by neglecting to issue public notice of their meeting and requiring secrecy when selecting potential replacements for former State Rep. Andrés Cano. State law nullifies any actions taken during a meeting found to have violated open meeting law.
The public must receive a 24-hour notice of the meeting details. However, as Tucson Sentinel reported, Pima County Democratic Party leadership initially refused to provide access to the online meeting link.
Leslie Stalc, Legislative District 20 chair, reportedly told the outlet that she “sent out notices to anyone who was concerned” when asked if she issued public notice of the meeting. During the meeting, Pima County Democratic Chairman Eric Robbins reportedly prohibited public participants from recording the meeting or discussing anything that took place.
“No party but the party host may create an audio or video recording of these proceedings,” said Robbins. “No matters discussed here may be disseminated to the public for any purpose not consistent with the goals of the Pima County Democratic Party.”
Later on in the meeting, Robbins reportedly admitted that they hadn’t been as transparent about the meeting as they should have. He denied any malicious intent, predicting that reporters might pick up on the potential open meeting law violation.
“We are trying to accommodate this and be as open and transparent as possible. Again, if people need to level criticism on that point, I understand it,” said Robbins. “It’s certainly news if you have to make it news. But realize we’re not trying to do anything nefarious here.”
The leadership also reportedly opted to not disclose the vote tallies during the meeting, but pledged to do so at a later point.
After the meeting, counsel for the Arizona Democratic Party (ADP) declared that leadership met open meeting law requirements by putting a calendar event on their website. The event listing didn’t include information about how the public could attend.
The Pima County Democratic Party calendar only listed the Tanque Verde Valley Democratic Club Monthly Meeting. Legislative District 20 meetings occur on the fourth Monday of each month.
The county party didn’t post about the meeting on any of their social media profiles.
Fellow LD20 lawmakers, State Rep. Alma Hernandez and State Sen. Sally Ann Gonzales, requested a do-over of the meeting in a joint letter to the ADP and the Pima County Board of Supervisors (BOS).
Supervisor Matt Heinz told Tucson Sentinel that it didn’t matter if the public was notified. Even if the meeting did violate open meeting law, Heinz said he would propose that his colleagues consider the three candidates anyway.
“The public notice thing doesn’t make a difference for the process at least with this,” said Heinz.
Cano resigned formally on Independence Day, about a month after announcing his intent to do so. The former lawmaker stepped down to obtain a master’s degree in Public Administration from the Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
Pima County Democrats voted last Saturday for three candidates to replace Cano: Elma Alvarez, Lourdes Escalante, and Betty Villegas.
Alvarez is a Tucson Unified School District teacher. Escalante is the executive director and former co-director of programming of Alianza Indigena Sin Fronteras, an activist group across southern border states and Mexico.
Villegas is the development director for the South Tucson Housing Authority, with a brief former stint as a supervisor for Pima County and a longtime housing program manager for the county.
I've submitted my formal resignation from the Arizona House of Representatives.
It has been a true honor to represent the people of District 20 and to serve as the House Minority Leader.
Scottsdale Unified School Board member Jann-Michael Greenburg could be removed from office for actions he undertook last year to circumvent Arizona’s Open Meeting Law, and the Arizona Attorney General’s Office does not want taxpayer funds to be spent for Greenburg’s defense.
Those are just some of the items of relief the AGO suggests in its lawsuit filed Monday against Greenburg and SUSD for alleged OML violations in August 2021 when Greenburg -then the board president- cut off speakers during Calls to the Public and barred other speakers from discussing district-related issues even though such comments must be permitted.
Records show the AGO received several complaints last summer about how the SUSD board was conducting meeting at its members were considering a mask mandate and proposed instructional model. The district later told Assistant Attorney General Michael Catlett the board was permitted to apply content-based restrictions on Call to the Public speakers.
However, Catlett’s lawsuit asks a Maricopa County judge for a judgment that Scottsdale Unified School District and Greenburg violated the OML during the cited meetings. The AGO also seeks an order prohibiting SUSD from expending any public monies for Greenburg’s legal representation, although any civil penalty ordered upon Greenburg would be paid for from the District’s general fund.
The AGO’s lawsuit makes clear that a public body is not required to offer a Call to the Public during its meetings and hearings. But if it does, there cannot be undue restrictions on what speakers can say except that the comments must address topics falling within the public body’s jurisdiction.
“Purposefully structuring a meeting so as to apply content-based restrictions on public comments addressing an issue listed on the same agenda and discussed at the same meeting transforms the public comment session into something other than an ‘open call to the public,” according to the lawsuit, which the defendants must answer within 20 days of service.
The AGO’s legal action against Greenburg and SUSD comes just weeks after Vernal Lee Crow of Glendale was sentenced for criminal violations of the state’s Conflict of Interest law while he served as vice-chair of the Arizona School Facilities Board (ASFB)
Crow was indicted in November 2021 for four alleged violations of state law in connection with votes he took part in in 2016 and 2017 despite the decision benefited himself or a family member. He later pleaded guilty to knowingly failing to disclose his association with Red Tree Consulting and failing to recuse himself from a vote in 2016 which awarded $112,000 for a repair job at a school in the Snowflake Unified School District.
As part of the deal, Red Tree Consulting was paid $12,050 of those funds. In addition, Crow pleaded guilty to knowingly failing to disclose another conflict of interest involving Red Tree Consulting which received $42,200 from a roof construction contract approved by the ASFB in 2017 for a school within the Casa Grande Union High School District.
The Attorney General’s Office is also following a legal challenge filed by a Sierra Vista resident in February 2019 against the Cochise County board of supervisors for appointing one of the supervisors to a lucrative judicial position.
The AGO has submitted numerous briefs in the case, which is scheduled for a trial setting hearing Tuesday morning.
In the case, then-Cochise County Supervisor Pat Call was appointed to a vacancy for justice of the peace at double his county salary. Call did not cast a vote on the appointment, but he was openly involved in a decision to not seek interested applicants for the position despite the fact several were present at the meeting.
Call also took part in an executive session prior to being nominated immediately after the supervisors resumed the public portion of their meeting.
In a rare move, the Greenlee County judge hearing the case at the request of Cochise County’s presiding judge disclosed the normally secret minutes of that executive session. The judge noted “justice so demands” the release.
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled last fall that the local resident can sue Call and the other two Cochise County supervisors -Ann English and Peggy Judd- for alleged OML violations. In addition, Chief Justice Robert Brutinel wrote that as a county resident and constituent of the board of supervisors, the resident “has an interest in protecting against self-dealing by Board members.”
It is expected that any trial will not occur until early 2023. English and Judd remain on the county board, although the lawsuit seeks to have them removed from office.
Call completed his term as justice of the peace at the end of 2020. He did not run for the office in the 2020 General Election.
