Attorney General Kris Mayes has been asked to investigate the city of Surprise over its alleged violation of one citizen’s free speech rights.
Republican State Senator John Kavanagh sent a letter to Mayes on Tuesday requesting an investigation into the arrest of a Surprise citizen after criticizing the city attorney during a city council meeting last month. The arrested citizen, Rebekah Massie, sued the city of Surprise last week with the aid of Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).
Mayor Skip Hall, who ordered Massie’s removal, cited city policy prohibiting public comment from lodging any “charges or complaints” against city employees or elected officials.
State law requires the attorney general to investigate local governmental ordinances, regulations, orders, or other official actions alleged to be in violation of the state law or Arizona Constitution. Under this law, Mayes’ office would have to issue a written report of their findings within 30 days of receiving the investigation request.
🚨FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Senator Kavanagh Calls on Attorney General to Investigate Potential Free Speech Violations in Public Comment Policy for City of Surprise
In a press release, Kavanagh claimed that the city of Surprise had violated both state law and the Constitution with Massie’s arrest.
“In Arizona statutes, we have a provision that specifically says, ‘[a] public body may make an open call to the public during a public meeting, subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions, to allow individuals to address the public body on any issue within the jurisdiction of the public body,’” said Kavanagh. “Protecting freedom of speech, especially in public government settings, is incredibly important to our democracy. Regardless of where they stand, members of the public deserve the opportunity to voice their opinions and concerns to city leaders.”
Kavanagh’s letter to Mayes asked the attorney general’s office to investigate whether the city of Surprise’s policy restricting public speech by prohibiting complaints against city employees and elected officials violates the Arizona Constitution and state law governing public comment within public meetings.
Were Mayes to determine that the city of Surprise’s public comment policy violates state law or the Arizona Constitution, her office would provide notice to the city by mail of its violation and give the city a 30-day deadline to resolve the violation. Should the city fail to resolve the violation, Mayes would notify the state treasurer to withhold and redistribute state shared funds.
Or, were Mayes to determine that the city’s public comment policy may violate certain state law or the Arizona Constitution, the attorney general would file a special action in the state Supreme Court to seek a resolution. The court would then require the city to post a bond equal to the amount of state shared revenues paid to the city in the last six months.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
The Surprise woman whose arrest for her speech during a council meeting went viral has sued the city, alleging they violated her constitutional right to criticize the government.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) filed the lawsuit with the Arizona District Court on Tuesday on behalf of the woman, Rebekah Massie.
The outgoing mayor of Surprise, Skip Hall, directed police to arrest Massie last month for refusing to cease her criticisms of their city attorney, Robert Wingo, during a council meeting. Hall declared that Massie wasn’t allowed to “attack” — as in, criticize — a public official at a city council meeting, and denied her the opportunity to conclude her public remarks.
Further, Hall warned during his viral argument with Massie that others who dared to criticize city officials or staff during public meetings in the future would be escorted out.
In her controversial criticism, Massie had challenged the city’s decision to increase Wingo’s pay due to his work performance. Police cited “trespassing” as the basis of Massie’s arrest.
Police arrested Massie in front of her 10-year-old daughter, who had attended the meeting with her mother.
Massie said in a video announcing her lawsuit with FIRE that Hall had weaponized the police to violate her rights.
“I have certain inalienable rights, and they were not only trampled on, but the mayor essentially weaponized the police force to shut me up,” said Massie.
LAWSUIT: With FIRE’s help, an Arizona mom is suing the City of Surprise, AZ., after the mayor ordered her arrest for questioning a pay raise for a city official.
In America, the last thing citizens should fear when they attend public meetings is leaving in handcuffs. pic.twitter.com/ox6EyEiVAW
In a separate press release, Massie said that her decision to stand her ground and be arrested served as a teaching opportunity for her children and the community.
“I wanted to teach my children the importance of standing up for their rights and doing what is right — now I’m teaching that lesson to the city,” said Massie. “It’s important to fight back to show all of my children that the First Amendment is more powerful than the whims of any government official.”
“(…) It’s important to fight back to show all of my children that the First Amendment is more powerful than the whims of any government official.”
FIRE’s lawsuit names Hall along with the city of Surprise and the arresting officer, Steven Shernicoff, as the defendants. The organization dubbed the council’s policy forbidding criticisms of city officials and staff the “Council Criticism Policy.”
FIRE attorney Conor Fitzpatrick stated in the press release that the First Amendment especially protects critiques of the government.
“If the First Amendment protects anything, it protects criticizing government officials,” said Fitzpatrick. “Arresting government critics might be how the world’s repressive regimes operate, but it has no place in America.”
Massie identifies politically as a libertarian; she founded The Grand Failure, a nonprofit advocating for government transparency and public safety.
Hall’s replacement, Mayor-Elect Kevin Sartor, condemned his soon-to-be predecessor’s actions in a public statement in the days following the incident.
“As Americans, our right to free speech is fundamental, especially when it comes to holding our government accountable,” said Sartor. “What happened to Rebekah Massie is unacceptable. No citizen should ever be arrested for voicing their concerns, especially in a forum specifically designed for public input.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
A mother from Surprise, Arizona, Rebekah Massie, stirred a major controversy in the West Valley during a city council meeting last week. Massie utilized her time to address the city’s decision to give a pay-increase to City Attorney Robert Wingo despite “numerous violations or alleged violations and blatant disregard,” for the Arizona Revised Statutes, the State Bar of Professional Conduct, the Arizona Constitution, and the U.S. Constitution.
Surprise’s outgoing Mayor Skip Hall wasn’t willing to hear her objections though. He ordered Massie’s removal from the meeting, resulting in her arrest and citation.
Mayor-Elect Kevin Sartor issued a statement Monday condemning the arrest and Hall’s actions saying, “As Americans, our right to free speech is fundamental, especially when it comes to holding our government accountable,” said Sartor. “What happened to Rebekah Massie is unacceptable. No citizen should ever be arrested for voicing their concerns, especially in a forum specifically designed for public input.”
Sartor, who was endorsed by the Republican Committee for LD29 emphatically added, “My administration will prioritize transparency, respect, and the protection of our citizens’ First Amendment rights. We will never arrest or silence our residents for expressing their views or questioning their elected officials. This is not just about Rebekah Massie; it’s about every resident of Surprise. Your voice matters, and it will always be heard.”
“The right to free speech is at the heart of our democracy, and as your next mayor, I will ensure that every citizen’s voice is heard, respected, and protected,” Sartor stated. “While there must be reasonable limits on speech in public forums—such as prohibiting violence, threats, or profanity—this recent incident did not come close to crossing those lines. As mayor, I will ensure that our city is a place where open dialogue is encouraged, not suppressed. We are stronger when every voice is heard.”
Massie began by telling the council that she was concerned about Wingo’s pay increase in light of his recent handling of allegations against the city clerk’s handling of elections along with him already earning the second-highest salary in the city at $266,000.
As reported by the Arizona Daily Independent, Massie explained, “Recent months have uncovered numerous violations or alleged violations and blatant disregard I would say for not only the Arizona Revised Statutes, the State Bar of Professional Conduct, but also the Arizona State Constitution and the Bill of Rights at the federal level.”
She continued, “Title 16, I won’t rehash everything but we are all too well and familiar with what took place during the election season and the violations thereof. City clerk is our elections officer. Nothing was done with those violations. And the city attorney did nothing as far as that. Title IX and 38 have conflict of interest pieces of information. It was deemed there was conflict of interest. Title 39, there are numerous public records requests that I have open right now that are ‘pending legal review’ that I am entitled to request.”
During her remarks Massie was cut off by Mayor Hall. “Ms. Massie, I’ve got to interrupt you here because this is the public meeting forum you agreed to when you speak and I want to read this to you,” Hall said.
He continued, speaking over her, “That there are Oral communications during the City Council meeting that may not be used to lodge charges or complaints against any employee of the city, or members of the body, regardless of whether such person is identified in the presentation by their name, or by any other reference that tends to identify him or her.”
Massie pushed back immediately, stating that Hall was violating her rights under the First Amendment and the two began to argue in a rapid exchange. “This is your warning,” Hall told her. “Warning for what?” Massie asked. “Warning for attacking a city attorney personally,” Hall replied.
“This is factual information,” Massie argued. “You are violating my First Amendment rights.”
“It doesn’t matter,” the Mayor said dismissively. “This is what you agreed to for speaking. This is the form.” Massie rejected the legality of the form, noting that if she desired she could profane the council for three straight minutes under constitutionally defined free speech. Hall rejected this. And a Surprise police officer appeared to escort her out.
Massie resisted and demanded to know the charges she was being detained on with her 10-year-old daughter looking on.
“Chief, could you have somebody come down here and escort Miss Massie?” Hall can be heard saying on video of the meeting.
“Really is that necessary? In front of my 10-year-old daughter you’re going to escort me out for expressing my First Amendment rights?” Massie protested.
“She can go with you,” the mayor answered.
Ultimately, Massie was cited for third degree trespassing according to The Center Square.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a free speech advocacy group, announced its intent to take legal action in a Monday post to X, writing “City of Surprise: We’ll see you in court. The First Amendment protects Americans’ right to criticize public officials without being arrested.”
City of Surprise: We'll see you in court.
The First Amendment protects Americans' right to criticize public officials without being arrested. https://t.co/Ii6D2dJ4v8
Massie confirmed that she is now being represented by FIRE, which is planning to file a lawsuit on her behalf in a post to X saying, “As an American, it’s my right to speak out to keep the local government accountable. And as a mom, it’s my obligation to set a good example and stand up for our fundamental rights — like the right of free speech — when they’re threatened.”
Correction: A previous version of this article incorrectly referred to Rebekah Massie as a member of FIRE. The story has been updated.
More of Arizona’s municipalities are increasing their water conservation efforts, leading taxpayers to pay more for less.
Preexisting sustainability goals and the burgeoning Colorado River drought have offered justification for these municipalities’ efforts, which have now resulted in lawn bans, increased water rates, and restricted water usage over the last few years.
Multiple cities recently traded in their Colorado River water rights in exchange for federal funding: Tucson, Phoenix, Peoria, Glendale, Scottsdale, Gilbert, Mesa, Surprise, Queen Creek, along with the state, Apache Junction Domestic Water Improvement District, Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District, Metropolitan Domestic Water Improvement District in Tucson, Salt River Project, and EPCOR.
Last month, Gov. Katie Hobbs announced the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) ban on the construction of new Phoenix homes that would rely on groundwater.
These progressive restrictions and charges also continue despite noted successes in conservation in comparison to past years with smaller populations.
The answer may lie with other developments in the state over the years. Big Tech’s data centers may be one of the major drains on water supply outweighing the net savings of residents’ water conservation efforts.
Mesa
In comparison to the other cities, Mesa doesn’t impose major water conservation restrictions. It does offer $1,000 in rebates for grass removal, with an additional $100 maximum for planting native trees.
However, the city may be contributing to the water burdens faced by its neighbors. In 2019, it approved the development of a data center for Google that could use one to four million gallons of water daily. Arizona residents average about 146 gallons daily currently.
Yet, as Time pointed out, Arizona Municipal Water Users Association (AMUA) — an organization that Mesa helped found — chastised Arizona residents several weeks after the deal between Mesa and Google for using 120 gallons on average daily.
Meta (formerly Facebook, which also owns Instagram) is now building a data center there as well. The year they broke ground in Arizona, they promised to be “water positive” — meaning, restoring more water than they consume — by 2030.
Like Google centers, data centers could use around one to five million gallons of water a day according to Texas Tech University’s Water Resources Center director, Venkatesh Uddameri.
Microsoft also operates data centers out of El Mirage and Goodyear. They made the same promise to be water positive by 2030.
Over 30 percent of the world’s data centers are located in the U.S.
Scottsdale
Scottsdale banned lawns on new builds earlier this month.
The city also offers to pay residents up to $5,000 for lawn removals, and up to $1 per square foot of water surface area plus $400 for pool or spa removals. For multifamily properties, homeowner associations (HOAs), and commercial businesses, the city offered up to $40,000 to remove their lawns, with an additional $10,000 bonus for grass strips adjacent to streets.
Since Scottsdale launched its rebate program in 1992, total rebates amounted to over $4.7 million; about half of which came from grass removals. The city has removed 94 acres of grass since the program’s launch. This fiscal year’s rebate budget sits at $450,000.
Last September, Scottsdale banned HOAs from requiring overseeding lawns.
Residents surpassed the city’s goal of 10 percent water conservation, achieving 12 percent over the last two years.
Tucson
Last month, Tucson banned lawns and reduced water flow in new constructions. The city also required all new residential dwelling units to include piping for a separate discharge of gray water for direct irrigation: the untreated, leftover water from washing machines, bathtubs, and sinks.
In 2008, Tucson required all commercial development and site plans to include a rainwater harvesting plan that provided for 50 percent of the annual landscape water supply.
In 2014, Tucson passed a water waste ordinance fining individuals $250 on the first offense and $500 on subsequent offenses up to $2,500 for allowing water to escape or pool onto public property; washing driveways, sidewalks, parking areas with a hose (unless a residential customer); operating a misting system in unoccupied non-residential areas; having an irrigation head or emitter that’s broken or spraying more than 10 percent onto a street, parking lot, or sidewalk; failing to control a leak; and failing to meet the 50 percent rainwater harvesting requirement for landscape irrigation.
Tucson also offers multiple rebates: $100 per residential, multi-family, or commercial premium high-efficiency toilet; $150 for a flushometer valve/bowl combination; $200 for high-efficiency or water-free urinal installation; $100 or $200 for a residential high-efficiency clothes washer; up to $2,000 for a residential rainwater harvesting system; and up to $1,000 for a gray water system. The city also offers special incentives for low-income residents: free high-efficiency toilets, grants up to $1,000 and loans up to $2,000 for a rainwater harvesting system, grants and loans up to $500 for a gray water harvesting system, discounted high-efficiency clothes washers, and free plumbing repairs.
Each year, Tucson makes available up to $250,000 in grant money to establish stormwater harvesting in neighborhoods.
Phoenix
Last month, the Phoenix City Council approved the Sustainable Desert Development Policy, requiring rezoning cases on new developments to satisfy city-approved standards on EPA WaterSense efficiency certifications; drought tolerant and/or native landscaping; restrictions on turf usage; outdoor irrigation efficiency standards; green infrastructure or low-impact development provisions for surface parking areas, streets, and sidewalks; participation in the city’s Efficiency Checkup program; new swimming pool standards; new wet-cooling system standards; and preservation of natural open spaces.
Additionally, the policy will require any entities that use over 250,000 gallons of water per day to submit a water conservation plan, approved by city staff. Any entities that use over 500,000 gallons of water per day must derive 30 percent of their water consumption from a recycled or conserved water source.
Entities dubbed “large water users,” may be denied operation even if their conservation plan is acceptable to the city. The policy stated that the city may reject the large water user if there’s inadequate water resource availability in their proposed location, inconsistency with the city’s planning documents; undesirable economic value and impact of their proposed water use; undesirable impact to water rates; or incompatibility with the city’s definition of a key industry beneficial to the economy.
The city doesn’t offer any rebate programs, though last December city officials expressed a desire to launch one to incentivize lawn removals. The city signed a joint pledge between locales in California and Nevada to remove ornamental turf.
The city also imposes an ordinance onto new developers, the Water Resources Acquisition Fee (WRAF) ordinance, which may be mitigated via credit if the developer provides a permanent reduction in annual water demand on the city.
The city has promised that it won’t institute mandatory water use restrictions in the near future, though it warned that severe or worsening drought conditions within the next 10-15 years may warrant such restrictions. Policy changes could include water waste punishments similar to Tucson’s, requiring child safe pool covers to reduce evaporation, banning turf irrigation, and banning car washing.
Flagstaff
Flagstaff has stricter water use requirements than some of the other Arizona cities.
The city has a watering allowance schedule during which residents may water their landscape: even-numbered addresses on Sundays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, and odd-numbered addresses on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. Nobody may water on Mondays, and the city prohibits watering between 9 am and 5 pm. Gardeners wishing to water by hand — “incidental hand watering” — may do so on any day, except from 9 am to 5 pm. However, vehicle washing is not subject to the water schedule restrictions.
The schedule is only permitted to be used when the city is at the first stages of burdened water demand. At level two, the city bans irrigation; car washing at home; driveway, sidewalk, and tennis court washing; filling of fountains, ponds, streams, or pools over 100 gallons. The city also increases water rates for those using over 6,400 gallons, and potable standpipe rates increase by 130 percent. At level three, potable water use is banned outside.
Those who violate the rules within any of the three levels are subject to fines starting at $25, doubling with each violation.
The city implements a diverse set of rebate programs. Commercial properties may receive free high-efficiency sink aerators, free high-efficiency shower heads, free pre-rinse spray valves, $86 rebate or 50 percent of project cost for commercial toilets, $158 or 50 percent of project cost for hotel toilets; and $157 or 50 percent of the project cost for commercial urinals.
Both residential and commercial properties may receive a rebate at 25 cents per square foot for converting to low-water landscaping. They may also receive a $100 rebate on installation of a rainwater harvesting system with 1000-gallon minimum capacity, and free 55-gallon rainwater harvesting barrels.
The city reported that their conservation efforts, beginning in 1988, have yielded a 50 percent water use reduction.
Gilbert
The town of Gilbert is offering up to $800 to residents and up to $3,000 to non-residential customers who swap their lawns for desert landscaping that uses less water. The city set aside $60,000 for the residential program, and $15,000 for the non-residential program.
A Gilbert spokesperson told AZ Free News that they have a total of $120,000 per year to issue on their rebate programs, and that the allocated funding within that budget may change from year to year based on the popularity of each program.
Anyone who receives $600 or more in water bill credits must complete a W9 for the Gilbert Water Conservation, as per the Biden administration IRS reporting requirement enacted last year.
Those aren’t the only water conservation financial incentives that Gilbert has offered. The town introduced rebates up to $250 for residential, $400 for non-residential properties to install smart irrigation controllers.
In May, the town applied for a $3 million grant from the Water Conservation Fund to replace grass on government property with desert-tolerant landscaping. The grant money ultimately comes from federal COVID-19 relief funds.
Gilbert announced that it saved 254 million gallons due to its conservation efforts in 2019, and 375 million in 2018.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
