On Tuesday, the Scottsdale City Council voted 5-2 to ensure that merit-based hiring, evaluation, and promotion replaces “unlawful and anti-meritocratic forms of discrimination,” and that the use of city funds for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) cease.
Despite the protests of 45 activists, along with current and former city employees, the vote carried with the newly elected council members and mayor acting on the mandate voters gave them in November.
The council also voted 5-2 to enact an ordinance requiring all city employees to return to in-person work. In both votes, Councilwomen Maryann McAllen and Solange Whitehead dissented. Mayor Lisa Borowsky voted with the majority. According to the text of the City Council Meeting Agenda, the new Ordinance No. 4662 will:
“1. Ensure city employees are hired, evaluated, and promoted based on merit, protecting City of Scottsdale employees from unlawful and anti-meritocratic forms of discrimination, and ensuring that residents and taxpayers are served by the most qualified city employees.
2. Discontinue the use of city funds for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) systemic programming, to include the Office of DEI, DEI programming and trainings, and other initiatives that could arguably violate A.R.S. § 41-1494. Training and prevention of unlawful discrimination remains encouraged and shall continue.
3. Direct the City Manager, or designee, to reassign the Diversity Program Director and ADA/Title VI Compliance Coordinator to an appropriate department and position; reflect these changes in the city’s organizational chart; and make the necessary budget transfers and amendments necessary to carry out the intent of this Ordinance.”
Councilman Adam Kwasman, a supporter of the ordinances, stated that equity needs to be removed from government because “it infers that equal justice under the law cannot exist. … It imposes a racial hierarchy predicated upon a narrative of past injury at the cost of equality.” Kwasman has been a prominent voice decrying the public being “bombarded with DEI” by the city.
You can’t walk into Scottsdale City Hall without being bombarded with DEI. This poison will be rooted-out of our beautiful city. No matter one’s race, orientation or creed, we value content of character. pic.twitter.com/dho2n4OU7a
Two members of the council attempted to forestall the vote by calling for a work study to be completed, examining the city’s DEI practices. However, this attempt was voted down.
Kwasman addressed the City Council and the activists in attendance by pointing out that the city’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act would not be affected nor would the city’s stance on anti-discrimination practices,
“Tonight, there is a purposeful conflation between intentions of those who do not believe in certain government programs and those who have a heart that’s aimed true and caring toward a diverse crowd. Toward somebody, toward a diverse community, to belief in equity, to a belief in inclusion because the definitions of diversity, equity, and inclusion are wonderful. They’re wonderful. Nobody questions it. Diversity brings together people from different backgrounds and different viewpoints. It enhances decision-making. It prevents group think.
“Equity is a centuries-old concept of law. It boils down to treating people fairly. And who could object to making people feel welcome where they live and work? You’re doing a good job. The problem, the problem is where the rubber meets the road. The problem is that DEI, as practiced here and elsewhere, it runs policies through the lens of race and sex and other identity categories. It actively prevents… it actively prevents diversity of viewpoint. It subverts equal opportunity in favor of an artificial equality of outcome. It excludes those believe whose beliefs diverge from a narrow orthodoxy.
“Companies, as of today, that have moved away from DEI include the following, as of today: Disney, GE, PayPal, Comcast, Amazon, Bloomberg, McDonald’s, Walmart, Lowe’s, Ford, Jack Daniels, which I think we all need one after tonight, Harley-Davidson, and John Deere.
“Scottsdale must be a city where all are welcome…to build a future and a flourishing future for themselves and their families, a place where everyone is treated equally and fairly under the law. This ordinance does not get rid of our ADA compliance, nor does it get rid of our anti-discrimination ordinance. And I stand with the Mayor when she stated that if there is ever an instance of discrimination in this city, I will stand shoulder to shoulder along with everybody on this dais to fight discrimination.”
WATCH THE MEETING:
The ordinance will directly impact two city roles: the city ADA coordinator, whose office would be relocated, and the Diversity Director, who may be reassigned.
It’s taken the better part of a year for vigilant Scottsdale parents, but the vulgar books they discovered will no longer be in their district’s libraries.
Last July, Scottsdale mom Jill Dunican wrote to the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) governing board about 17 books allegedly containing “vulgar or educationally unsuitable content.” Dunican wrote on behalf of several advocacy organizations and individuals: Scottsdale Unites for Educational Integrity, Arizona Women of Action, Restore Parental Rights in Education, Protect Arizona Children Coalition, A Legal Process, Not In Our Schools, Shiry Sapir, Dan Kleinman (SafeLibraries), EZAZ, Save CFSD, Kids First, Mom Army, and Moms For Liberty.
The contested books were “A Stolen Life” by Jaycee Dugard; “Doomed” and “Haunted” by Chuck Palahniuk; “Lucky” by Alice Sebold; “PUSH” by Sapphire; “Sold” by Patrick McCormick; “Tricks,” “Perfect,” “People Kill People,” “Identical,” and “Smoke” by Ellen Hopkins; “Icebreaker” by Hannah Grace; “A Court of Frost and Starlight” by Sara J. Maas; “Anatomy of a Boyfriend” and “Anatomy of a Single Girl” by Daria Snadowsky; “Breathless” by Jennifer Niven; “Me and Earl and the Dying Girl” by Jesse Andrews; and “Lawn Boy” by Jonathan Evison.
Most of these books were only available at the various high schools within the district. One contested title — “Sold” — was available at the Desert Canyon K-8 school.
In her letter to the board, Dunican claimed these books violated Arizona’s laws on furnishing harmful items to minors and Arizona’s parental bill of rights.
“The negative impacts of vulgar material on children include: ‘greater acceptance of sexual harassment, sexual activity at an early age, acceptance of negative attitudes to women, unrealistic expectations, skewed attitudes of gender roles, greater levels of body dissatisfaction, rape myths, and sexual aggression,’ as well as sexual risk taking, mental health problems, decreased academic performance and detachment from family and friends,” wrote Dunican.
SUSD agreed. Following a temporary pull of the books and investigation by a review committee, SUSD found that nearly all of the contested books needed to be kept out of circulation permanently — meaning these texts violated Arizona laws on furnishing harmful materials to minors.
Last Friday, SUSD advised Dunican of the removal of 15 of the 17 contested books. The district determined the other two books — “Sold” and “Stolen Life” — may remain in circulation under the condition of parental consent for checkouts.
In a response email to Dunican, SUSD director Kim Dodds Keran added that the 15 books to be removed from circulation had “very limited circulation,” meaning they were checked out five or fewer times over the past three years.
In an email shared with AZ Free News, Dunican asked SUSD to adopt a policy complementing Arizona law prohibiting public schools from referring students to or using sexually explicit material in any manner.
This law maintains exemptions for works that possess “serious educational value” or “artistic, literary, political, or scientific value.” In those cases, schools must obtain written parental consent on a per-material basis.
Dunican suggested the proposed SUSD policy could have librarians rely on rating services to review book ratings ahead of book purchases.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
A new release from former Scottsdale City Councilman and Chairman of Taxpayers Against Awful Apartment Zoning Exemptions (TAAAZE) Bob Littlefield has levied a serious accusation toward Axon. Littlefield alleged that the non-lethal weapon and bodycam manufacturer spent “a massive amount of money on so-called ‘petition blockers’” to counter city voters who were opposed to the company’s plan, which was backed by the defeated former Mayor of Scottsdale and his city council, to build 1,900 apartment units near the site for its new headquarters.
TAAAZE contended in the release, “The company doesn’t want the public to know the details.” The group continued, “That’s why it spent a massive amount of money on so-called ‘petition blockers,’ but failed to file a campaign finance report detailing its expenditures for the fourth quarter of 2024.”
“These ‘blockers’ stalked lawful petition circulators and tried to prevent Scottsdale residents from signing petitions to place Axon’s apartment project on the November 2026 ballot. It turns out Scottsdale residents can’t be bullied. Nearly 27,000 signed the petition in defiance of Axon’s intimidation tactics.”
As previously reported by AZ Free News, TAAAZE laid out a case that the massive apartment development would “increase traffic, block views, increase the use of our scarce water resources and negatively impact public safety.” The group also objected on the grounds of the firm’s new headquarters harming the funding mechanism for Arizona Schools.
Littlefield said in a statement, “Axon’s failure to file a campaign finance report with the City of Scottsdale demonstrates a blatant disrespect for state law and the people who follow it every day.”
He added, “As a Vietnam combat veteran, I won’t be intimidated by hired ’petition blockers,’ billion-dollar companies, or threats from its CEO. I have always supported Axon’s plans to build its headquarters in Scottsdale. Now Axon is threatening to leave town if it doesn’t get its lucrative rezoning which amounts to a giant apartment subsidy. If that’s the case, I know lots of people who will help them pack.”
Axon canceled its plans to break ground on a new world headquarters in Scottsdale on January 9th citing on its website, “the recent emergence of local political opposition,” which has caused the company to consider alternate locations for its global headquarters.
Founder and CEO Rick Smith said in a statement posted on Axon’s website, “Scottsdale has been our home for over 30 years, and we’ve worked hard to build a strong future here. But the uncertainty caused by this referendum forces us to confront a tough reality: we can’t allow political games to put our mission or our team at risk. Our focus remains on saving lives, improving public safety and attracting the brightest minds to join us. If that means relocating to a community that fully supports those goals, we’re prepared to make that move. This type of political interference risks not only this project but also Arizona’s ability to attract and retain major employers in the future.”
Axon has claimed that the referendum championed by TAAAZE, “has been linked to Unite Here, a California-based labor union, and its local political arm, Worker Power Institute, which has previously targeted major Arizona projects, including the Arizona Coyotes’ arena development. That campaign ultimately led to Arizona losing a major sports franchise.”
According to AZCentral, leaders of both Unite Here, the union Axon referred to, and TAAAZE have denied the union had any connection to the effort. The outlet reported that Littlefield told reporters Unite Here agreed not to launch its own petition drive as to avoid “compromising” the efforts of TAAAZE. However, he could not confirm or deny that canvassers from Unite Here were circulating petitions for the group.
“I could imagine that somebody would do that,” he told the Arizona Republic. “But we don’t have any formal setup with them at all.”
Last week, the newly elected Scottsdale City Council voted to repeal the city’s sustainability plan, a controversial measure championed by former Mayor David Ortega.
A statement emailed by Councilman and Vice Mayor Barry Graham ahead of the council’s vote outlined the serious concerns he and his colleagues had with the sustainability plan. He wrote that the plan “passed in the 11th hour by the lame-duck Council calls for city government to:
Reduce your household trash-output by 90% in 15 years.
Ration your electric usage—regardless of power source.
Ration water usage for single-family homes while giving businesses and apartments a pass.
Outsource local control to the agendas and politics of county government.
Redirect your tax dollars to speculative environmental programs.
Subject your home and business to monitoring and auditing.”
He added, “Because the prior council majority refused to compromise, the new council must consider whether to repeal and replace the plan with one that focuses on sustaining our economy, finances and quality-of-life.”
The vote during the first meeting of the newly constituted council, however, ended in newly elected Mayor Lisa Borowsky voting against the repeal and creation of a Sustainability Task Force to draft a replacement strategy, drawing immediate criticism. The vote nonetheless carried without Borowsky’s vote by a 4-3 margin, and the plan has been repealed.
The activist account on X, Scottsdale Voter, characterized the Sustainability Plan as the “Scottsdale ‘Green New Deal’ forced through by four 1-term lame-duck losers,” and condemned Borowsky following the vote. They wrote, “We’re in shock We worked hard to elect Mayor Borowsky[.] We knew Solange Whitehead is desperate to influence new councilors, just like when she ‘got ahold of Tom Durham.’”
They continued, “The Scottsdale ‘sustainability plan’ was one of disgraced Mayor Ortega’s proudest legacy pieces. It was a ‘green new deal’ shoved down Scottsdale’s throat. And Borowsky voted to protect it.”
The Scottsdale 'sustainability plan' was one of disgraced Mayor Ortega's proudest legacy pieces. It was a 'green new deal' shoved down Scottsdale's throat. And Borowsky voted to protect it
On her campaign website, Borowsky pitched as a Key Issue that she would “Develop a 20-year strategic plan focused on sustainability, economic diversity, and livability, engaging stakeholders in crafting a vision for the city’s future.”
According to the Resolution, the interim City Manager will work to establish a Community Sustainability Task Force that will examine the fiscal, population, and conservation needs of the city before making recommendations for a new plan.
With the new year here and the 2025 legislative session officially underway, Democrats are already proving they can’t learn a lesson. Led by Governor Katie Hobbs, one of their primary targets is once again…you guessed it…Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program. Stop us if you’ve heard this before.
You would think that Democrats would find a different target after getting trounced in an election where teachers’ unions and other anti-school choice groups made it a referendum on school choice. But no. After 2 ½ years and multiplefailures trying to overturn school choice, they’d rather double down on their same tired and out-of-touch policies.
This time, Hobbs and the Dems say they want to roll back ESAs because of all the supposed “fraud” in the program. Never mind the fact that the rate of waste, fraud, and abuse in the ESA program is extremely low. Never mind the fact that ESAs have proven to be far more financially accountable than other government programs. Democrats don’t care about facts. Instead, they want to regulate this popular program while Arizona’s Democrat Attorney General Kris Mayes asks for more funding to investigate ESA fraud.
But here’s a message for Hobbs, Mayes, and the rest of the Democrats:
If you care so much about fraud, why not investigate Arizona’s public school districts?
They could start with Isaac Elementary School District (IESD)…
