Fountain Hills Times Independent, Nov. 19, 2025: “In a chaotic discussion wherein Mayor Gerry Friedel had Sheriff’s deputies clear the council chamber of the audience, Fountain Hills Town Council voted 5-2 to remove open public comment and personal councilmember updates from future agendas. The action took the form of an amendment to the council Rules of Procedures on the advice of Town Attorney Jennifer Wright. Wright said she advised the council to end the practice or suspend the rules for six months due to a legal notice of claim from resident Beth Culp.”
Councilmember Peggy McMahon, who along with Councilmember Brenda Kalivianakis, were in the minority, voting against the removal of public comment. McMahon put forth a strong argument during the meeting against eliminating Call to the Public and protecting residents’ right to speak, but this was a council majority that we believe arrived that evening with the intent to vote as a bloc — shutting down voice — and carried it out despite numerous speeches from residents that made powerful cases for protecting Call to the Public voice. We share the transcript of Councilmember McMahon’s opposition to Agenda Item 9g below:
=============================================================
THE RULES of procedure have been revised by this council in April of this year and a few times by the majority on the previous council, that included removing our code of ethics and the ability of our residents to file legitimate complaints against council members for violation of ethics. All done without shutting down Call to the Public or councilmember reports.
Call to the public enables our community members, and others, to stand before council and participate in their government by communicating their concerns in person, even when making personal attacks against council members that include lies and misstatements and threats of lawsuits. I know, I’ve been repeatedly attacked by ROT numerous times over the years and Skillicorn filed a lawsuit against me clinging to violation of “his” right to free speech. Now, our Town Attorney is suggesting we shut down our constituents’ freedoms of speech.
At the last council meeting, Beth Culp stood before council and respectfully provided notice of her intent to file a lawsuit alleging violations of the Establishment Clause by certain council members and members of the public. Statements that should not have been allowed by the Mayor, yet he did nothing to stop their inappropriate religious statements and Bible quoting, thereby creating the situation we are now faced with addressing tonight. Shutting down Call to the Public and Council reports, as a reaction to that and a resident’s notice of a lawsuit.
Many others have previously stood before council and literally threatened lawsuits, lied, and personally and viciously attacked council members at Call to the Public, and the prior Mayor did not overreact and shut down Call to the Public for nefarious reasons. The prior Town Attorney also never asked to shut it down while he was performing his everyday legal duties to the Town, either.
Further, because a few members of council have intentionally misused the purpose of councilmember reports relating to their council responsibilities, for personal ones or due to their religious beliefs or day job, should not mean all of us on council should be prevented from making our professional reports as working council members. Such statements of participation also do not impede the Town Attorney’s ability to perform her job as Town Attorney and analyze an everyday lawsuit filed by one of our residents.
This is an extreme and needless request to abridge public comments by preventing our residents from participating in their government and holding council members accountable at an open and noticed meeting. This is an unacceptable reaction to someone giving notice of an intended lawsuit alleging unethical conduct of council members. In fact, since the majority on council removed our needed code of ethics and the ability to file ethical complaints, and are now trying to silence Call to the Public, the opposite result will occur. Those who participate in our government through Call to the Public in open meetings will speak to council by the only formal means available to them, filing more complaints with the AG’s office and lawsuits to have their voices heard and hold council accountable. I don’t think this is the result you are seeking.
Even though statutes don’t mandate we have Call to the Public, that shouldn’t matter. We’ve had Call to the Public for years and have not suspended it or removed it, especially for the self-interest reasons stated in the agenda to prevent people from saying things that may not be to your liking. To me, you’re setting the Town up for more complaints and violations of freedom-of-speech lawsuits that we cannot afford.
Lastly, how convenient to obstruct and remove Call to the Public and council statements of interest in an election year, which is so obviously self-serving by the Mayor and the Town Attorney, at the expense of our residents’ right to openly participate in their own government.
