Gerry Friedel and his four teammates have accomplished little during the first year of the ROT administration. Our streets are still in bad shape, and no plan has even been suggested as to how, given our current revenue, we could possibly pay to fix them. There has been no promised “renegotiation” of the MCSO contract. The funds available to replace the lake liner remain grossly inadequate. Based on Bart Shea’s recent defiant pronouncement, we can look forward to years of litigation as we stroll past the giant unfenced field of dust and mud he promised to leave on our town’s premiere street.
And then there has been the proliferation of reputation-killing headlines that have been generated as the ROT administration’s failed efforts to hide the ball have been uncovered.
In March, Friedel’s claim that his meetings with Sheriff Sheridan resulted in a $370,000 reduction in the cost of police services was revealed as a lie. A month later, team member Gayle Earle was caught hiding the ball when, after accusing the former town attorney of fraudulent billing, it was revealed that before her “audit” was even completed she had been in communication with ROT’s favored firm, Timothy La Sota, PLC and Jennifer Wright, to take over the job. Then, Friedel’s claim that the press table was removed from the council chambers due to space concerns was exposed as a lie when communications from team members Watts and Larrabee were produced, proving that removing the press table was intended to punish Bob Burns, a 37-year journalist of the Fountain Hills Times/Times Independent, for his reporting.
And now Jennifer Wright, in her role as the designated hitter, assigned to clean up Friedel’s mess in the aftermath of the disastrous
September 15 meeting, has demonstrated that she, too, prepared to play hide the ball. According to Wright’s “legal opinion,” it was necessary to eliminate the Council Reports and Call to the Public agenda items to protect the town from additional claims based on violations of the Arizona and U.S. Constitutions.
As stated by Wright during the November 18 meeting:
“And so umm that’s why that this is these changes to the rules of procedure are an attempt to balance the First Amendment rights of the community against the threats of lawsuits. Importantly the Culp complaint seeks to demand the Town engage in constitutionally, prohibited viewpoint, content discrimination by prohibiting speakers from including any statements of faith and taking that approach would invite a civil rights complaint and subject the town to potential financial liability. So umm that uh removing these this these two these two items at least temporarily are reasonably calculated to um and avoid any potential civil rights complaints if you were to engage in the conduct suggested and uh to prevent more abusive complaints um on these topics.”
Wright’s poorly articulated rationale is absurd. The risk of future claims arising out of the violation of residents’ constitutional rights is not eliminated by getting rid of two agenda items where those violations could possibly occur. There is a risk that constitutional rights may be violated any time someone speaks at a public meeting. Councilmembers Skillicorn and Larrabee don’t need a “Council Reports” agenda item to engage in proselytization or to quote scripture. Eliminating the Call to the Public will not prevent Town Council candidate Ben Larrabee, or another religious extremist, from launching into a religious tirade. Larrabee could deliver the same speech while at the lectern during a public hearing or when speaking to an agenda item.
The risk of future constitutional claims can never be eliminated by limiting the opportunity to speak at a public meeting. Council members must be able to speak in order to address the secular business of the town and members of the public have a statutory right to speak to certain agenda items. The only meaningful way to control claims is to enforce the Rules of Procedure.
If Friedel and Wright had done their jobs and enforced the Rules during the September 15 meeting, there would have been no claim for violation of the Establishment Clause. Consistent with the Rules, Pastor Pavia’s presentation should have been limited to delivering the invocation, without the eulogy. Councilmembers Skillicorn and Larrabee should have been told to limit their presentations to a discussion of their town-related activities during the prior two weeks. Ben Larrabee should have been instructed to limit his comments to a topic within the Town Council’s jurisdiction.
Contrary to Ms. Wright’s rambling opinion, in a limited public forum—like a Town Council meeting—it is constitutionally permissible for the government to use its Rules of Procedure to restrict or limit speech based on the subject matter, the speaker’s designated role in the proceedings, and by the relevance of the speech to the secular business of the town. The risk of claims for violation of the First Amendment rights of speakers at a public meeting arises only when the Rules of Procedure are not neutrally and consistently applied. In the case of the September meeting, due to Wright’s silence and Friedel’s ineptitude, the Rules were entirely ignored.
Wright’s strategy to hide the ball from the public, through a fatally flawed “opinion,” will be exposed because it is not based on a legitimate legal analysis. But in addition, and perhaps more importantly, it will be exposed because it does not pass the smell test, revealing Wright’s willingness to subvert her ethical obligations to the Town to the political goals of its mayor.
Providing residents with a public forum to challenge Friedel and question his effectiveness was not consistent with his goal. Providing Councilmember Kalivianakis with a public forum to discuss her activities on behalf of the Town and its residents was not consistent with that goal. And so, the dutiful Wright constructed a specious legal framework to justify getting rid of both public forums.
Under the ROT administration, if the law threatens your leader’s chance of being reelected you need to get rid of the law. That is an approach you can take when you have four teammates and a Town attorney who are ready, willing, and able to subvert the public interest to further his ambitions.
