Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) is contemplating more school closures as enrollment continues to decline.
The SUSD governing board discussed their options going forward during Tuesday’s meeting. Superintendent Scott Menzel said “some very, very difficult decisions need to be made.”
Since 2010, SUSD enrollment has declined by 6,000 students and the district has only closed one school. SUSD also reported rising costs, competition against school choice programs for students, and underutilized facilities as key pressures on district conditions.
“We have far more physical space than we have students to fill that space,” said Menzel.
As part of Phase I of restructuring for “full and thriving schools,” SUSD decided to close Pima Elementary School and Echo Canyon School. The district is now in Phase II, where it will decide the fate of the Desert Mountain Learning Community and Copper Ridge School.
Capacity is below 50% at Laguna Elementary (43%), Desert Canyon Elementary (37%), and Cheyenne Traditional (11%).
SUSD is facing an open meetings violation complaint pertaining to these closed-door Phase II proceedings to determine closures and consolidations.
SUSD’s Phase II Design Advisory Team doesn’t permit the public to attend its meetings under its classification as a Superintendent Advisory Committee, but the complaint against the district contends that the team was formed at the direction of the governing board.
The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (MCAO) is now handling the complaint after the Arizona Attorney General’s Office cited a potential conflict of interest.
The MCAO told AZ Free News that they just recently received the complaint from the attorney general on July 17, though it was filed back in April. Their office also told us that it couldn’t provide any additional details at this time since it is an open investigation.
The Phase II Design Advisory Team presented three options for further restructuring, in the following order of greatest to least preferences:
First-most preference: close Copper Ridge K-8 and Laguna Prep, redistribute boundaries, and a possible Desert Canyon K-8 merger. This option would impact 773 to 872 students and provide more than $2.7 million in savings.
Second-most preference: move Cheyenne Traditional K-8 to Copper Ridge, move Laguna Prep and Redfield to Cheyenne campus, and a potential Desert Canyon K-8 merger. This option would impact 2,126 to 2,232 students and provide nearly $2.6 million in savings.
Third-most preference: merge Desert Canyon schools into K-8 at Copper Ridge, close Laguna Prep, repurpose Desert Canyon campuses and Laguna Prep. This option would impact 2,132 to 2,153 students and provide nearly $2.7 million in savings.
Impact was measured beyond students moving into schools to include certain students at receiving schools.
All three options were presented with multiple potential models for restructuring boundaries.
Member Amy Carney attempted to explain that she believed closing schools was the “easy option,” to which she objected, but was interrupted multiple times by Governing Board Vice President Mike Sharkey and counsel with cautions that she shouldn’t express opinions about what the board should and shouldn’t do prior to community debate on the options.
Member Carine Werner urged agendizing a board discussion about the options before them prior to the board meeting in October in which they are scheduled to make a vote.
Member Matthew Pittinsky expressed caution against exploring other options beyond what the Phase II Design Advisory Team had presented to them; he characterized Carney’s position as “a very slippery slope.”
The district said it has not yet determined how it would repurpose any closed schools.
SUSD scheduled a special session to receive additional community input on September 22.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Attorney General Kris Mayes is declining to investigate Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) for potential violations of open meeting law due to a potential conflict of interest.
Mayes referred the complaint, filed back in April, to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (MCAO).
The complaint accused SUSD Superintendent Scott Menzel of violating open meeting law concerning school closures and consolidations, specifically with regard to the operations of the Phase II Design Advisory Team tasked with handling those decisions. The governing board voted to close Pima Elementary School and Echo Canyon School last December.
According to the complaint, the district’s Phase II Design Advisory Team must be open to the public because it was formed at the direction of the board, not the superintendent. The design advisory team operates under the classification of a Superintendent Advisory Committee, which is exempt from Open Meeting Law requirements.
The Phase II Design Advisory team publicizes its past and upcoming meeting dates and materials but does not permit the public to attend the meetings. The team held five meetings as part of Phase A, which lasted from March through May, and recently concluded five meetings as part of Phase B, which lasted from June through earlier this month.
Menzel proposed the design advisory team during a regular governing board meeting last November, and the following month the board discussed the formation of the design advisory team in a regular meeting. The board didn’t vote at that latter meeting to form the design advisory team.
The citizen who filed the complaint told AZ Free News that MCAO informed him in late July that the attorney general’s office had referred the investigation to them. Caitlyn Mitchell, an attorney with the Civil Services Division, told the complainant that the attorney general could not investigate because it provides legal counsel to SUSD.
“The Arizona Attorney General’s Office referred your Open Meeting Law complaint against the Scottsdale Unified School District to us to avoid any potential conflict of interest because the AG’s Office also provides legal counsel to SUSD,” said Mitchell.
Around the time of our initial reporting, SUSD advised AZ Free News that their officials were not aware of the complaint filed against the district, nearly a month after the complaint had been filed.
AZ Free News asked the MCAO when the attorney general referred the complaint to their office, and when they might have the results of their investigation complete.
We also asked about communications with SUSD, given the lack of awareness the district initially had when the complaint was in the possession of the attorney general’s office.
MCAO didn’t respond to our inquiries.
Last summer, the attorney general’s office found SUSD in violation of open meeting law for engaging in actions similar to those that led to the creation of the Phase II Design Advisory Team.
“The Open Meeting Law does not permit a governing board to evade the public meeting requirements by ‘informally’ forming or establishing, or by directing a superintendent to establish, a committee to perform work that would otherwise need to be conducted in public,” stated Mayes. “[W]e caution against an overly narrow reading of the law focused exclusively on the circumstances of a committee’s creation.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
On July 29, 2026, the American people watched Dr. Anthony Fauci sit before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, chaired by Sen. Rand Paul, and refuse to answer more than 100 questions.
He invoked the Fifth Amendment repeatedly, claiming Sen. Paul’s “unhinged obsession” and public calls for accountability left him no choice. That performance was not the act of a public servant who had nothing to hide.
It was the calculated silence of a man whose private diary entries, public statements and policy influence during the COVID-19 pandemic demand thorough investigation, arrest where warranted and prosecution.
Sen. Paul released more than 1,100 pages of Fauci’s pandemic-era diary in the days leading up to the hearing. Those entries reveal a stark contrast between what Fauci wrote privately and what he told the American people.
In late January 2020, he noted that the Wuhan wet market “was not the source, it was the amplifier.” On a Feb. 1 conference call with leading scientists, his own notes recorded that most participants believed deliberate insertion of genetic material was possible.
Publicly, the narrative pushed natural origin with little room for the lab-leak hypothesis. Americans were told one story while the man at the center of federal infectious-disease policy recorded another.
The hearing itself produced no substantive answers. Fauci declined to address questions on National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding related to research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, gain-of-function work, the scientific basis for lockdowns and school closures, mortality assessments and prior congressional testimony.
Sen. Paul warned that obstruction of a congressional investigation carries consequences and scheduled a vote on contempt. A presidential pardon issued in the final days of the prior administration does not erase the need for a full accounting, nor does it immunize against new findings or perjury related to earlier sworn statements.
As a commander who spent more than three decades in uniform, including time in the Pentagon on Sept. 11 and leading combat operations, I understand the difference between honest error under pressure and the systematic mismanagement of truth.
Public health leadership during a genuine crisis requires candor. When private records show awareness of lab-related possibilities while public messaging closed off debate, when policy recommendations contributed to widespread economic shutdowns, educational losses and eroded trust in institutions, and when the same official then refuses to answer under oath, the public has every right to demand more than silence.
The costs were real. More than a million Americans died. Children lost years of schooling. Small businesses closed. Military readiness suffered under vaccine mandates that sidelined trained personnel. Public confidence in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NIH and broader health agencies plummeted.
Fauci’s influence as the most visible federal voice on the response amplified every decision. Accountability is not vengeance; it is the baseline requirement for a free society that funds science and expects honest stewardship of that authority.
Prosecutors should examine the full record: the diary, emails, funding decisions and prior testimony for evidence of false statements to Congress, obstruction or other violations of federal law. Contempt of Congress is a serious matter.
If evidence supports criminal charges, whether related to misleading Congress on research funding, origins or the scope of federal guidance, then the Department of Justice has a duty to act without fear or favor. No official, however decorated or long-serving, stands above the law. The Fifth Amendment protects against compelled self-incrimination; it does not erase the underlying facts or prevent investigation based on independent evidence.
Sen. Paul’s committee has done the hard work of bringing the diary into the light and forcing the appearance. The next steps belong to the Justice Department and, if necessary, the courts.
Holding Fauci to account would not rewrite history or undo the losses of 2020–2022. It would demonstrate that power exercised in the name of public health remains subject to the same constitutional standards that apply to every other citizen. Without that standard, trust cannot be rebuilt, and the next crisis will meet even greater skepticism.
The American people funded the research, lived under the guidance and paid the price. They deserve answers, not another round of procedural stonewalling. Justice delayed is not justice at all.
Rob Maness is a contributor to the Daily Caller News Foundation, a decorated combat veteran, and dynamic leader with over 40 years of experience steering complex organizations through high-stakes challenges. During his military service, Maness received eighteen major awards and decorations, including the Legion of Merit twice and a Bronze Star for combat leadership. Through Iron Liberty Group (2013-present), Maness consults, hosts “The Rob Maness Show” on the WorldViewTube Network, and drives digital initiatives, showcasing entrepreneurial adaptability. His leadership — forged in combat, proven in turnarounds and fueled by a knack for inspiring teams — marks him as a force for action and impact in any arena and is showcased in his book: “What You Can Do About It — Taking Real Action Against Corruption, Radicalism, and Moral Decay to Save America.”
Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) is once again facing another Open Meeting Law complaint over a non-public advisory committee.
The complaint, filed last month with the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, claims that SUSD Superintendent Scott Menzel has again violated Open Meeting Law during his phased approach to closing schools.
The Scottsdale resident who filed the complaint told AZ Free News that he felt compelled to look into SUSD’s process for school closures in response to the community shock over the governing board’s decision to close Pima Elementary School and Echo Canyon School last December.
The closures brought $2.5 million in savings to the district. SUSD began looking into the closing and consolidating of schools, among other solutions, to address an $8 million budget deficit driven by declining enrollment.
This latest complaint claims that SUSD’s non-public Phase II Design Advisory Team was formed at the direction of the board and therefore required to be open to the public. Superintendent Menzel encouraged the governing board to authorize the design advisory team during a regular governing board meeting last November.
The next month, during the same meeting to close the Pima and Echo Canyon schools, the governing board discussed the design advisory team’s formation. In that meeting, Menzel and SUSD governing board president Donna Lewis strategized on ways for the board to direct the design advisory team’s formation but style it as a superintendent’s committee. The board indicated that it wanted Menzel to move forward with the team, but didn’t take a vote to create the team.
The design advisory team operates under the classification of a Superintendent Advisory Committee, which is exempt from Open Meeting Law requirements. The newly filed complaint alleges that the governing board’s involvement in the creation of the Phase II Design Advisory Team makes that classification untrue.
The Phase II Design Advisory Team is charged with crafting recommendations on schools to the board, including further closures or consolidations.
The resident behind the complaint told AZ Free News that he filed against the district after SUSD personnel denied him entry to one of the design advisory team’s meetings in person.
SUSD told AZ Free News that it hasn’t received notification of this complaint.
SUSD got into trouble last year for similar non-public advisory committees.
Last summer, Attorney General Kris Mayes found SUSD had violated Open Meeting Law for using advisory committees in a manner similar to the alleged violation outlined in the complaint.
“The Open Meeting Law does not permit a governing board to evade the public meeting requirements by ‘informally’ forming or establishing, or by directing a superintendent to establish, a committee to perform work that would otherwise need to be conducted in public,” stated Mayes. “[W]e caution against an overly narrow reading of the law focused exclusively on the circumstances of a committee’s creation.”
The Phase II Design Advisory Team has held five meetings since it began in March. The team consists of two facilitators, Karen Benson and Quintin Boyce, and 45 members.
28 parents or guardians on the team represent current students at 11 schools: Anasazi Elementary School, Cheyenne Traditional School, Copper Ridge School, Desert Canyon Elementary School, Desert Canyon Middle School, Desert Canyon Mountain High School, Redfield Elementary School, Laguna Elementary School, Saguaro Middle School, Mountainside Middle School, and Mohave Middle School.
Other team members include eight SUSD staff members, six homeowners in the community, one community organization member, and one university partner.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
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.
