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.
A dozen Maricopa County libraries have removed more than 50 books on sex education and puberty from their children’s sections. The move follows complaints from parents and advocacy groups who said the books contained inappropriate material.
As previously reported by AZ Free News, the Maricopa County Library District (MCLD) has been subject to increasing criticism from parents’ rights advocates like Arizona Women of Action (AZWOA) and EZAZ, who engaged with the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (BOS) in June. The groups objected to books such as “It’s Perfectly Normal” by Robie H. Harris and “This Book Is Gay” by Juno Dawson for the titles’ graphic depictions of sex and sexual behavior.
Responding to a petition launched by AZWOA, the BOS approved a pilot program at the Queen Creek Library, allowing parents to submit a form listing books their children may not check out.
According to AZCentral, the Board later directed the books to be relocated in response to the concerns brought to them. Due to the administrative nature of the move, a formal vote was not required. Supervisor Steve Gallardo, the board’s only Democrat, expressed objections to the outlet, saying, “Call it whatever you want … it’s wrong, and we shouldn’t be engaging in this.” Gallardo claimed that although he “agreed with some of the changes,” parents should be responsible for monitoring their children in the libraries.
Republican Supervisors Lesko, Stewart, and Brophy McGee supported the measure fully, stating that the measure is intended to:
“Protect our youngest from their prying eyes and curiosity,” per Stewart.
“Relocate questionable books into areas of the library that are less, or not, accessible to children,” according to Brophy-McGee.
“Make sure that sexually explicit library books are out of the reach of minors,” as described by Lesko.
🚨🚨 YOUR VOICE IS NEEDED! 🚨🚨
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors needs to know that residents are concerned about the sexually explicit books in the county libraries. Please sign & share this petition.
— Arizona Women of Action (@azwomenofaction) June 20, 2025
As reported by the Arizona Daily Independent, several books were brought to the BOS’s attention, though the complete list of inappropriate books is extensive. The AZWOA referred to a book rating site, ratedbooks.org, as well as a book list on Scottsdaleunites.com.
Merissa Hamilton of EZAZ later posted a list of egregious books found on MCLD shelves. Highlighted titles include “It’s Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex, and Sexual Health” by Robie H. Harris, which features cartoon-like drawings with sexually graphic information. “This Book Is Gay” by Juno Dawson is also in question because it instructs children on how to engage in meetups for casual sexual encounters. Novels by Ellen Hopkins graphically depict sex, human trafficking, and abuse. These books may violate state statutes, including ARS 13-3506:
“It is unlawful for any person, with knowledge of the character of the item involved, to recklessly furnish, present, provide, make available, give, lend, show, advertise, or distribute to minors any item that is harmful to minors. C. A violation of this section is a Class 4 felony.”
“A. It is unlawful for any person knowingly to place explicit sexual material upon public display or knowingly to fail to take prompt action to remove such a display from property in his possession or under his control after learning of its existence. B. A person who violates any provision of this section is a Class 6 felony.
The potential prompted citizens to consider bringing these books to the attention of the county’s sheriff and attorney’s offices.
County Manager Jen Pokorski told Republic reporters in June that the county is contemplating a new rule, a new “software solution” which would permit parents to restrict their children’s access to different books by category.
“I think the goal of the new software would be, the books that we’ve deemed — or that have illustrative pornography, will be off limits to children under a certain age,” Supervisor Mark Stewart explained. “And then anything that a parent would want to opt their child into, they’re welcome to sign up and do that.”
However, he did clarify, to the Arizona Republic, “I did not say that sex-ed books are illustrative pornography.”
As with most things, asking the right questions is often more important than getting the answers. This is especially true for parents and grandparents who want to protect their children. We need to ask, then ask some more, to get to the truth at our kids’ school and public libraries.
If you value children, here’s what you should be asking, some important answers, good news of progress, and what YOU CAN DO to protect yours (and others’) kids:
4 Questions (with answers):
1 – Are there actually bad materials in schools and libraries, or is this just ‘pearl clutching’?
Besides the profits for activists and the porn industries, it’s ignorance. Common-sense people are not becoming aware. (This is a reason to subscribe to AZ Women of Action’s weekly Call To Action Update!) Most people have no idea what children see in schools or access in libraries, but we keep them informed.
3 – Isn’t this simply ‘sex-ed’? Is there evidence of the harm on kids when they see sexual material?
4 – Do parents have a say on what their kids see at public schools and libraries?
YES–but only if they speak up! Arizona has some of the strongest parent rights laws. (See ‘What You Can Do’ for specifics.)
Some Good News!
AZ Women of Action has made progress with Maricopa County Libraries: We asked questions of the MC Library office who told us that no one had ever complained about children’s books (obviously because nobody knew). So, we created a citizen petition, shared the facts with our followers, and presented hundreds of names to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. They listened. We emphasized that parents, not libraries, should have the ultimate authority over the type of content their children are exposed to. We argued that the current arrangement, where explicit books are freely available to children, violates parental rights and endangers children’s emotional and mental well-being.
We also met with Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell and her team. Overall progress is being made, though slowly.
We’re seeing widespread support from parents, teachers, faith-based organizations, and local activists who share the same concerns. Our message is clear: books are not being ‘banned’ but moved to adult sections for parents to decide. It’s not about censorship but protecting childhood. It’s restoring the family’s role in deciding how to protect and nurture each child.
What YOU CAN DO:
1. Ask schools for their opt-out forms for any material you deem inappropriate for your child. Sex education is supposed to be opt-IN (meaning they require your permission before kids see it). Ask to see your school’s curriculum first.
2. Ask your local libraries for a form that limits what their child can check out or access online. If they don’t have one, contact the city, county, or state library office and file a request to change parent-rights policies.
3. Report any concerning material found in schools to the ADE Empower Hotline at 602-771-3500, or submit their online form.
5. Promote Cleaner, Safer Libraries. Join Arizona Women of Action for a fun, family story hour with positive, wholesome books for kids! We’ve partnered with Brave Books to host “See You At the Library Story Hour” on Saturday, August 16th from 1–2PM at the Phoenix Public Library – Mesquite Branch. Families will enjoy uplifting and wholesome stories read by Arizona Women of Action and special guest Maricopa County Superintendent of Schools Shelli Boggs. Click here to register.
Kim Miller is the President and Founder of Arizona Women of Action. You can find out more about their work here.
Last Tuesday night, the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board held what could only be described as a marathon meeting, lasting six and a half hours, including the executive session. The agenda was packed with items, but one issue drew the most attention: the proposed adoption of a new Social Science curriculum.
Eighteen individuals participated in the public comment portion of the meeting. All but one focused on the curriculum. A significant majority urged the Board not to adopt it, citing deep concerns. Opponents argued that the curriculum was saturated with DEI narratives, anti-law enforcement bias, gender ideology, climate activism, misleading COVID-19 claims, and advocacy for student activism over academic learning. Their primary concern: the curriculum fosters political indoctrination, not education.
Despite their differences, both supporters and critics of the curriculum appeared to agree on two points: students need to be taught the truth about current events, and they must learn to think critically. The debate centers on what constitutes the truth and how critical thinking should be developed.
Those supporting the curriculum’s adoption argued that it presents an honest, if uncomfortable, portrayal of America, especially regarding race and law enforcement. The curriculum cites examples like the 2014 police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. It emphasizes that Brown, an unarmed Black teenager, was shot six times and killed by a white police officer, and points to the incident as emblematic of systemic racism.
The curriculum also discusses the rise of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement and its evolution from protesting police brutality to addressing broader systemic issues like housing, healthcare, and employment disparities for Black Americans.
Additional content includes explanations about gender identity, stating individuals can identify as male, female, both, or neither. The curriculum also addresses the COVID-19 pandemic, stating that the FDA approved two highly effective vaccines and suggesting that lockdowns saved lives. It frames the environmental benefits of lockdowns as evidence of climate change and the need for continued action.
One speaker supporting the curriculum even admitted that for those questioning these narratives, “I don’t know what to say.”
Critics, however, challenged these representations as incomplete or misleading. Regarding the Michael Brown case, there is no mention that the Department of Justice’s investigation found Brown was attacking the officer and trying to take his weapon—his DNA was found on the gun—and that the claim he had his hands up saying “don’t shoot” was debunked in court. By omitting these critical facts, the curriculum pushes a one-sided narrative that paints law enforcement as inherently racist.
If the goal were truly critical thinking, the curriculum would also include studies like that of a Harvard professor, who, despite his preconceived belief that there is racial bias in policing, found no racial bias in police shootings after analyzing hundreds of cases. An honest and open discussion would allow students to examine why Black Americans commit crimes at a rate disproportionate to their population, not just claim they are victims of systemic racism. Perhaps the high rate of crimes being committed by young Blacks might explain their high rate of involvement with the police. But with this curriculum, it is doubtful the students will ever have such a discussion.
Law enforcement professionals also voiced concerns. The President of the Maricopa County Colleges Police Officers Association, a former Scottsdale police officer, and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office both criticized the curriculum’s anti-police tone. They warned that such content erodes trust between youth and law enforcement—trust, they say, is essential for community safety.
Rather than comparing the BLM movement to the civil rights movement and implying BLM has done great things for Blacks in America, why not tell the truth that the leaders of BLM stole money and bought houses for themselves? Or that several of the local chapters said nothing has been done by BLM to help Blacks in their communities.
Critics also took issue with how the curriculum handles topics like climate change and COVID-19. The omission of data showing that Antarctica has gained ice in recent years, information that contradicts climate change alarmism, is concerning. While skeptics of the climate narratives are called “science deniers,” the curriculum promotes the idea that there are more than two genders and that gender is fluid is a fact, when it’s really a denial of biological science.
On COVID-19, the curriculum claims the vaccines were effective at preventing infection but fails to acknowledge how the scientific narrative evolved. Initial claims about vaccine efficacy were later revised, with experts clarifying that while vaccines may not prevent infection, they can reduce the severity of symptoms. The curriculum also omits discussion of the high survival rate of COVID-19, 99%, particularly in children, and the long-term educational harm caused by prolonged school closures. There is no mention of the fact that the government actively blocked any negative discussion about the vaccine, including reporting on the severe negative side effects many people experienced.
One especially controversial element of the curriculum encourages students to take political action, such as organizing protests or social media campaigns, in support of transgender rights, or creating NGOs, leading critics to argue that it turns students into political activists.
Questions were also raised about how the curriculum was reviewed and recommended. Supporters of the adoption process claimed the committee’s work was “thorough and inclusive,” but the review committee was composed mostly of teachers, with only one community member, who happened to be the spouse of a former Board member, and no parents on the committee. One supporter of the curriculum told the Board members it was their responsibility to approve the committee’s recommendation, apparently without considering the curriculum themselves and just rubber-stamping the committee’s work. I don’t think so.
There are financial implications, too. Because the curriculum includes DEI and gender identity material, the SUSD risks losing funding—not just from government sources but also due to declining enrollment—as some families opt out of SUSD altogether. This ongoing trend of declining enrollment tracks with Dr. Menzel’s leadership of SUSD. Not only are students leaving, but critical, experienced staff and teachers are leaving. At this time, only about 50% of the eligible students attend SUSD—a dismal number, but reflective of just how well SUSD is perceived in the community.
On May 13th, board members Pittinsky, Sharkey and Lewis voted to defy Superintendent Menzel's "NO DEI" pledge and committed YOUR tax dollars for the purchase of DEI-filled curriculum.
— Scottsdale Unites for Educational Integrity (@ScottsdaleUnite) May 16, 2025
Keep in mind that indoctrination aims to instill a specific set of beliefs or ideas without allowing for critical thinking or questioning, whereas education encourages exploration, curiosity, and independent thought, fostering a deeper understanding through evidence and critical analysis.
After doing your research, ask yourself: Is this curriculum indoctrination or education? Which do you want for your child?
The current Board makeup makes any substantial changes in SUSD unlikely. Dr. Menzel’s apparent security in his position of “leadership” means we can expect him to continue his destruction of SUSD. I expect to see more 3–2 votes going forward and remain skeptical about the Board’s willingness or ability to restore trust and balance in SUSD and the classroom.
As this school year comes to an end, talk to your kids about what has gone on in their classrooms. What have they learned? Go to the SUSD website and look at the materials they will be using next year. If the information you are seeking is not available, use the Let’s Talk feature to question the staff and Dr. Menzel. If you find something objectionable, exercise your rights under Arizona law and opt your kid out of lessons.
Go to the Arizona Department of Education website and check the academic performance of your child’s school, or the new one they will be attending next year. Don’t fall for the SUSD hype of having so many A+ schools; rather, compare that rating to the academic performance of your schools. Does it meet your definition of A+? You just might be surprised at what you find.
Not every parent can take their child out of SUSD. Many will return next year, but despite the challenges, we must continue to strive for change in SUSD. Get involved. Go to Board meetings. Email the Board with your thoughts and concerns. Talk to the teachers. I know everyone is busy, but you can’t sit idly by and expect others to do the work by themselves. The number of people involved matters.
It’s your kid’s future we are talking about.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) parents are attempting to reverse the relaxation of the district’s dress code.
SUSD surveyed Scottsdale Parent Council (SPC) members about the district’s dress code, which parents criticized for failure to indicate a requirement for students to cover their midriffs.
The survey, shared by Scottsdale Unites For Educational Integrity (SUFEI), only included “genitals, buttocks, chest, and nipples” in its description of “private body parts” in a question to parents about appropriate student clothing.
SUFEI urged parents to respond to the survey in opposition to the question of appropriate student clothing and to leave a comment explaining their support for qualifying the midriff as a private body part.
Current SUSD dress code does not require students to cover their midriffs. However, the dress code does prohibit students from wearing anything deemed “hate speech,” along with any clothing depicting profanity, nudity, or pornography.
In 2022 emails reported by the Arizona Daily Independent last fall, the governing board’s then-vice president Libby Hart-Wells reportedly pressured SUSD administration to override the district’s Code of Conduct to allow girls to wear clothing that exposed the midriff.
SUSD Residents- help 🛑 the sexualization of Scottsdale Unified students!
— Arizona Women of Action (@azwomenofaction) April 22, 2025
Hart-Wells, who presided over the board last year, no longer serves on the board.
Most other districts around the Valley do not allow midriffs and have maintained the traditional set of dress codes, but several have begun to loosen their dress codes as well.
In 2023, Higley Unified School District (HUSD) removed policy language prohibiting clothes which “immodestly exposes the chest, abdomen, midriff, genital area, or buttocks,” instead reducing the prohibition to clothing exposing “undergarments [or] undergarment areas.”
Last year, Tucson Unified School District revised its policy citing concerns of sexism and equity, effectively allowing students to expose most of their breasts along with their entire torsos and buttocks.
Scottsdale parents concerned with the relaxed dress code are also coming off of other, more significant concerns with the district. Last year, the governing board approved a bonus to Superintendent Scott Menzel despite lower test scores. Menzel earned the bonus based on meeting several nonacademic achievement goals over the course of a year, not any of the academic ones: increased attendance rate, increased student extracurricular and cocurricular activity participation, increased certified staff retention, an established baseline for work-based learning opportunities and hours, and the production of a decision making matrix and proposal.
Under Menzel’s leadership for the past four years, SUSD enrollment dropped by over 1,500 students and science scores dropped 24 percent. Less than 50 percent of 8th grade SUSD students were proficient in math, despite 94 percent of students graduating.
Menzel has been a proponent of more progressive ideologies, such as those behind critical race theory and LGBTQ+ lifestyles. Menzel has defended the inclusion of sexualized discourses and subject matter on campuses as protected under Civil Rights law.
Menzel came to SUSD in July 2020 amid the racial reckoning sweeping the nation following George Floyd’s death in police custody. The year before, while still a superintendent in Michigan, Menzel gave an interview calling the white race “problematic” and meritocracy “a lie.”
“[White people] should feel really, really uncomfortable, because we perpetuate a system by ignoring the realities in front of us, and living in a mythological reality,” said Menzel. “In this country it’s about meritocracy. ‘Pull up yourself by your bootstraps, everybody has the same opportunity.’ And it’s a lie.”
The discovery of these past remarks prompted Scottsdale lawmakers to advocate for Menzel’s removal.
Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne also advocated against Menzel’s contract renewal last fall.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
