Scottsdale, AZ

Sign This Petition

https://www.standunited.org/petition/5g-moratorium-in-scottsdale-az

Sept 20, 2020 — Taming the 4G/5G Wireless Infrastructure
Grid in Scottsdale, AZ
Sept 22, 2020 — Scottsdale AZ City Council Work Study Session—
Densified 4G/5G Infrastructure Deployment

Sept 30, 2020 — Valerie Marsh

   

Confirmed by the Scottsdale City Clerk on 9/22/2020 @ 11:15 pm

The following people will be physically present in the Scottsdale Kiva (City Council Chambers) this evening for the 9/22/2020 City Council Meeting

City Council Members will attend in person

  1. Mayor, Jim Lane — jlane@ScottsdaleAz.gov | 480-312-2433
  2. Vice Mayor Solange Whitehead — SWhitehead@Scottsdaleaz.gov
  3. Council Member, Suzanne Klapp — sklapp@scottsdaleaz.gov
  4. Council Member, Virginia Korte — vkorte@scottsdaleaz.gov
  5. Council Member, Kathy Littlefield — klittlefield@scottsdaleaz.gov
  6. Council Member, Linda Milhaven — lmilhaven@scottsdaleaz.gov
  7. Council Member, Guy Phillips — gphillips@scottsdaleaz.gov

City Officers will attend in person on 9/22/2020

Staff Members will Attend by Zoom (already set up, folks)

  1. Telecom Policy Coordinator Keith Niederer Niederer@ScottsdaleAZ.gov | 480-312-2953
  2. Randy Grant, Planning and Development Services
  3. Per IT Director Brad Hartig bhartig@ScottsdaleAZ.gov | 480-312-2622, 480-312-7615, Telephone service is already set up as a back up.

Relevant Documents

Work Study Item #3: 4G/5G Wireless —
Presentation, discussion and possible direction to staff regarding the implementation,
process and framework for locating small wireless facilities within the City.
Presenter(s): Keith Niederer, Telecom Policy Coordinator
Staff Contact(s):Planning and Development Services Director Randy Grant

rgrant@scottsdaleaz.gov

, | 480-312-2664

>>> From Cathleen Butteweg, MMC | Deputy City Clerk/Records Manager | City Clerk’s Office @ 12:15 pm on 9/22/2020

State of Arizona Executive Orders issued by Doug Ducey:
Links to Emergency Declarations issued by Mayor W.J. “Jim” Lane, City of Scottsdale:

  • Link to March, 18 2020 City of Scottsdale Emergency Declaration

  • Link to May, 15 2020 City of Scottsdale Emergency Declaration

  • Link to May, 31 2020 City of Scottsdale Emergency Eeclaration

  • Link to City of Scottsdale Coronavirus Update

Links to September 22, 2020 Meeting Documents

  • Link to the September 22, 2020 City of Scottsdale Council Meeting agenda:

  • Link to view meeting in progress, link to September 22, 2020 City of Scottsdale Council Meeting:

​
— Cathie

Cathleen Butteweg, MMC | Deputy City Clerk/Records Manager | City Clerk’s Office
City of Scottsdale
3939 N. Drinkwater Blvd. | Scottsdale | AZ | 85251
480.312.7846

Communications

September 24, 2020
   

Ms. Sherry Scott
City Attorney
City of Scottsdale, AZ
3939 N. Drinkwater Blvd.
Scottsdale, AZ 85251
480-312-2405
   

Dear Ms. Scott,

Please read my responses below as S4WT comments or here → https://scientists4wiredtech.com/arizona

>>> Emailed by City of Scottsdale City Attorney, Sherry Scott on 9/24/2020 at 10:39 am, PT

Scott:

In addition to the multiple messages you have left for me, I understand that you have also left multiple messages for a number of other members of the City Staff, including in the City Clerk’s Office, City Manager’s Office and Planning
Department.

S4WT: Yes, I have left multiple messages and I have to admit the one attribute that you all share is your unwillingness to return a phone call from a member of the public, which is both disappointing and rude. I have to credit Planning Manager Tim Curtis as the one exception. He, appropriately, returned my call on 9/22/2020, but not on 9/23/2020.

Scott:

Given the tone, volume and nature of your communications, including your allegations that the City is in violation of the law and has misstated the law and your resulting demands, my office has been asked to handle all future communication with you through a single point of contact.

S4WT: I am not sure what you are alleging about "the tone and nature" of our communications, but the public has the right to address their grievances to their government (upheld by the US Supreme Court, as recently as 2011) and the public will not tolerate any mischaracterization of our efforts or any gaslighting attempts by you or any other member of staff of the City of Scottsdale . . . something we are smelling in your letters (and your unwillingness to return a call and talk this out).

Rest assured, Ms. Scott, that we are not alleging violations of the law by the City of Scottsdale, we have put evidence in the public record about those violations. We have a right to attend public meetings. Full stop.

No matter what you write, the public’s right to attend public meetings has been repeatedly violated by the City of Scottsdale. The evidence of these violations are in the public record — the agendas and video records of the City Council meetings from March, 2020 through Sept 22, 2020. Attending a public meeting (with an opportunity to be invited to comment in our own spoken voices) is clearly different than viewing or listening to a public meeting (with no opportunity to comment in our own spoken voices), as I established in my other written communications to you, elsewhere on this web page.

You repeating such empty and false assertions that viewing or listening to a meeting is the same as attending a meeting is a waste of everyone’s time and energy and an insult to the public’s intelligence.

I have no desire or requirement to follow/respect the request made of your office to handle all future communications with an appointed staff person as a single-point of contact. In fact, I will reject that right now and communicate that rejection to those on the wide distribution list of this email. Nice try, Ms. Scott, but, once again, your letter holds no water. That is now three empty letters in a row . . . see each of your letters refuted here → https://scientists4wiredtech.com/arizona.

Ms. Scott, you are a City Attorney and an officer of the City of Scottsdale, I believe. I have requested from you to send me by email the oath that you took when you started to work for the City. Will you please email me that signed oath and your current job description. I think both of those documents will clear up your proper role in this matter. I believe we will learn that you are an advisor to the City Council and certain members of the City staff and, as such, cannot be deployed as a filter to the public’s communication to its government. I will look forward to reviewing those documents this afternoon, if you will so kindly email them to me.

Scott:

As you likely observed, the City Council decided not to take any action regarding the [Densified 4G/]5G telecommunication item.

S4WT: Not exactly, Ms. Scott . . . here is the action the Mayor wrongly took: I will consider that item closed. Mayor Lane evidenced in his words on 9/22/2020 his confusion about the City of Scottsdale’s liability exposure, which is presently quite significant — about which anyone can learn from attorney Mark Pollock here → https://scientists4wiredtech.com/thisworks. In addition, Mayor Lane’s demeanor exhibited a palpable "battered wife syndrome", while he stated the following at 24:53 in video of the 9/22/2020 City Council Work study Session → https://youtu.be/i9CQl53PW0U?t=24m53s), featured at https://scientists4wiredtech.com/arizona

Mayor Lane on 9/22/2020:

"I would say that there is really not an interest in entertaining that kind of activity because it would increase a tremendous amount of liability — far beyond whatever [liablilty that] is being presented as what we are facing now with these installations . . . to the taxpayers. And frankly even to the level of service that we might see and how we might be perceived, if in fact we were to stand in the way of it. Up against the feds, againt the State, the FCC and the EPA , in order to try to nullify the installation of the [Densiifed 4G/]5G networks. So . . . I don’t see that there is any particlar reason for us to pursue this further with any guidance . . . for anything in the right-of-way, we are fully indemnified by whoever is using the property, so that is not an area of concern . . . Unless anyone has some opposing point of view, I think really, as far as I am concerned, we have heard the story, we have all viewed the information that was presented to us and seen the presentation, as far as the city is concerned. So, unless there is an objection, I will consider that item closed.

S4WT: These words from Mayor Lane were merely a cringe-worthy repetition of Wireless industry propaganda, and not based on the actual substance, fact and law that the public already placed in the City of Scottsdale public record (evidence it seems that the Council members did not sufficiently read or understand).

The public understands human nature and knows that many written public comments often get completely ignored (as evidenced in this case). The public attempted to enforce its rights (guaranteed by the Arizona Open Meetings Act) to attend the 9/22/2020 City Council meeting. The public wished to be in a position to be invited to speak, using our own voices — either in-person or by Zoom — just as Mr. Niederer attended the meeting by Zoom, to make his presentation, but the public was not given the chance to do so in our own voices. That is wrong.

We now seek to formally refute the false statements made in Mr. Niederer’s presentation and cannot allow these false statements to remain on the City of Scottsdale’s public record. We need to discuss with the City of Scottsdale’s Mayor, City Manager, City Clerk and Planning Director how we will strike from the public record any provably false statements — of which there were many made by Mr. Niederer — and be granted an equal amount of time to present the public’s substantial evidence, fact and law directly to the City Council members using our own voices and our own set of slides — an equal opportunity to that offered to Mr. Niederer.

That means, the Mayor should be willing to open the item back up to have Mr. Niederer retract his false statements and then the Mayor can provide an opportunity for a 15-minute presentation (either by Zoom or in-person) by the public’s subject matter experts followed by 15-minutes of public comment (5 speakers x 3 minutes each), in line with the precedent set in the October, 2019 City Council Work Study Session.

Scott:

Accordingly, City Staff now needs to focus on a multitude of other matters coming before the City Council and through the City’s administrative process in the upcoming weeks. As such, I will not have sufficient time to personally communicate with you on this matter and neither will the City Clerk’s Office, the City Manager’s Office or the Planning Department on the topics of your information and demands regarding Wireless Facilities, the September 22, 2020 Council meeting and/or citizen rights related to the Open Meeting Law.

S4WT: Nope, no such a "tidy bow" attempted by Mayor Lane to not address the issue of insufiiciently regulated wireless 4G/5G infrastructure will be tolerated by the public. We are fine not communicating to you, Ms. Scott — because you are merely an advisor to the City Council members and the City Staff — but the Mayor, City Clerk, City Manager and Planning Director are on the hook for fixing the current and existing problems of false statements in the public record. Just because you write something in a letter, Ms. Scott, it doesn’t make it true.

Scott:

Rather, I have asked Eric Anderson, who is an attorney in my office with telecommunications and open meeting law experience, to respond to any of your requests that in his determination, the City may have a legal obligation or desire to respond to. You can contact Mr. Anderson at eanderson@scottsdaleaz.gov at your convenience. City Staff will likely forward any additional communications you send directly to Mr. Anderson for appropriate handling. I do ask that you be respectful of Mr. Anderson’s time because every citizen feels that their issue is the most important and Mr. Anderson works on several other matters for the City of Scottsdale.

S4WT: That’s nice but we see no reason, requirement or advantage to follow your suggestion on to whom you would like us to communicate. We will exercise of first amendment rights to communicate to whomever we wish in our government. We ask the City Staff to be both responsive to and respectful of the public’s time as we work to correct the significant extant problems that remain with the insufficient local regulation of wireless 4G/5G infrastructure in Scottsdale, AZ.

Scott:

Rest assured that Mr. Anderson has reviewed your submittals and those of others as well as the written public comments that were submitted. Mr. Anderson will also be able to more thoroughly review and more quickly respond to any requests that the City needs to address. Specifically, Mr. Anderson will respond to your request for the public records from the September 22, 2020 Densified 4G/5G Infrastructure hearing and the City Manager, City Clerk and City Attorney’s Oath of office in short order.

S4WT: Mr. Anderson can do as he wishes, just as the public can do as it wishes.

However, you attempting to place Mr. Anderson between the public and its government as some kind of filter to the public’s communication to its government is wholly inappropriate and we reject any such restraints on our first amendment rights.

Once again, nice try Ms. Scott, but no dice. The public has clear rights which have been continually violated by the City of Scottsdale for over six months and we choose to enforce these rights through all lawful means.

We look forward to timely and substantive responses from City staff to address the important, urgent issues we have raised re: insufficient local regulation wireless 4G/5G infrastructure in Scottsdale, AZ and the City violating our rights to attend public meetings.

Thank you and have a nice rest of your day.

>>> On 9/22/2020 @ 4:38 pm, PT, the following was entered into the Scottsdale, AZ public record

September 22, 2020
   

Ms. Sherry Scott
City Attorney
City of Scottsdale, AZ
3939 N. Drinkwater Blvd.
Scottsdale, AZ 85251
480-312-2405
   

To: City of Scottsdale City Council Members:

  • Mayor, Jim Lane — jlane@ScottsdaleAz.gov
  • Vice Mayor Solange Whitehead — SWhitehead@Scottsdaleaz.gov
  • Council Member, Suzanne Klapp — sklapp@scottsdaleaz.gov
  • Council Member, Virginia Korte — vkorte@scottsdaleaz.gov
  • Council Member, Kathy Littlefield — klittlefield@scottsdaleaz.gov
  • Council Member, Linda Milhaven — lmilhaven@scottsdaleaz.gov
  • Council Member, Guy Phillips — gphillips@scottsdaleaz.gov

To: City of Scottsdale Employees

  • City Manager, Jim Thompson JThompson@ScottsdaleAZ.gov | 480-312-2811
  • Assistant City Manager, Brent Stockwell BStockwell@ScottsdaleAZ.gov | 480-312-7288
  • Assistant City Manager Bill Murphy BMurphy@ScottsdaleAZ.gov | 480-312-7954
  • City Attorney Sherry Scott sscott@ScottsdaleAZ.gov | 480-312-7816
  • City Clerk Carolyn Jagger cjagger@ScottsdaleAZ.gov | 480-312-2411

Re: Arizona State Law Violations Prohibiting Members of the Public from Attending 4G/5G Council Study Session, Round 2

[To City Clerk, Carolyn Jagger cjagger@ScottsdaleAZ.gov (480-312-2411). Will you please put this email and its attachments into the public record for the 9/22/2020 City Council Meeting, Work Study Item #3: 4G/5G Wireless —Presentation, discussion and possible direction to staff regarding the implementation, process and framework for locating small wireless facilities within the City. Thank you for doing so.]

>>> Kari W wrote on 9/22/2020 4:28 PM:

Hi. We were denied the Zoom Link and escorted out of the building by head of security with 4 police officers behind him.

We were asked to wait outside. He did come out and politely informed us the only comments they have taken since March is via the public comment section (which we are all aware of). There is no zoom link. It’s not on zoom at all- per city.

Ben was told when he arrived they aren’t meeting in the building- which would obviously be a blatant lie.

I was informed by telephone today around 11:00 am by Cathleen Butteweg, MMC, Deputy City Clerk/Records Manager that the following was going to happen tonight.

City Council Members will attend the 9/22/2020 meeting in person at the Kiva; tonight’s video should clear up the truth of the matter

  1. Mayor, Jim Lane — jlane@ScottsdaleAz.gov
  2. Vice Mayor Solange Whitehead — SWhitehead@Scottsdaleaz.gov
  3. Council Member, Suzanne Klapp — sklapp@scottsdaleaz.gov
  4. Council Member, Virginia Korte — vkorte@scottsdaleaz.gov
  5. Council Member, Kathy Littlefield — klittlefield@scottsdaleaz.gov
  6. Council Member, Linda Milhaven — lmilhaven@scottsdaleaz.gov
  7. Council Member, Guy Phillips — gphillips@scottsdaleaz.gov

City Officers will attend in person on 9/22/2020 meeting in person at the Kiva; tonight’s video should clear up the truth of the matter

  1. City Manager, Jim Thompson JThompson@ScottsdaleAZ.gov | 480-312-2811
  2. Assistant City Manager, Brent Stockwell BStockwell@ScottsdaleAZ.gov | 480-312-7288
  3. Assistant City Manager Bill Murphy BMurphy@ScottsdaleAZ.gov | 480-312-7954
  4. City Attorney Sherry Scott sscott@ScottsdaleAZ.gov | 480-312-7816
  5. City Clerk Carolyn Jagger cjagger@ScottsdaleAZ.gov | 480-312-2411

Staff Members will Attend the 9/22/2020 meeting by Zoom (already set up, folks)

  1. Telecom Policy Coordinator Keith Niederer kniederer@ScottsdaleAZ.gov | 480-312-2953
  2. Randy Grant, Planning and Development Services
  3. Why must city employees lie to members of the pubic, their constituents, taxpayers and voters?

Thank you.

>>> On 9/22/2020 @ 3:58 pm, PT, the following was entered into the Scottsdale, AZ public record

September 22, 2020
   

To: Ms. Sherry Scott

City Attorney
City of Scottsdale, AZ
3939 N. Drinkwater Blvd.
Scottsdale, AZ 85251
480-312-2405

To: City of Scottsdale City Council Members:

Mayor, Jim Lane — jlane@ScottsdaleAz.gov
Vice Mayor Solange Whitehead — SWhitehead@Scottsdaleaz.gov
Council Member, Suzanne Klapp — sklapp@scottsdaleaz.gov
Council Member, Virginia Korte — vkorte@scottsdaleaz.gov
Council Member, Kathy Littlefield — klittlefield@scottsdaleaz.gov
Council Member, Linda Milhaven — lmilhaven@scottsdaleaz.gov
Council Member, Guy Phillips — gphillips@scottsdaleaz.gov

To: City of Scottsdale Employees

City Manager, Jim Thompson JThompson@ScottsdaleAZ.gov | 480-312-2811
Assistant City Manager, Brent Stockwell BStockwell@ScottsdaleAZ.gov | 480-312-7288
Assistant City Manager Bill Murphy BMurphy@ScottsdaleAZ.gov | 480-312-7954
City Attorney Sherry Scott sscott@ScottsdaleAZ.gov | 480-312-7816
City Clerk Carolyn Jagger cjagger@ScottsdaleAZ.gov | 480-312-2411

   

Re: Arizona State Law Violations Prohibiting Members of the Public from Attending 4G/5G Council Study Session

   
Dear Ms. Scott,

[To City Clerk, Carolyn Jagger cjagger@ScottsdaleAZ.gov (480-312-2411). Will you please put this email and its attachments into the public record for the 9/22/2020 City Council Meeting, Work Study Item #3: 4G/5G Wireless — Presentation, discussion and possible direction to staff regarding the implementation, process and framework for locating small wireless facilities within the City. Thank you for doing so.]

Nice try Ms. Scott. I have attached your latest letter to this email.

Please do not mischaracterize my efforts today, as you have. I am not "upset" in any way, as you allege. I am clearly stating the public’s rights under Arizona State law and the public’s intention to enforce their right to attend public meetings in Arizona, starting at 5:00 pm on Sept 22. 2020. You and other City of Scottsdale employees have a duty and an obligation to follow Arizona State law and allow members of the public to attend tonight’s City of Scottsdale City Council meeting. Short of doing that, you and and other City of Scottsdale employees are willfully breaking Arizona State law, the very State Open Meeting act that you are citing.

Inexplicably, you continue to confuse several plain words that are easy to define and understand. Attend (1: to be present at : to go to) is not the same as view or listen. as we all know.

Go here for an explanation: https://youtu.be/o26Y7Tgm6wE?t=14m42s

You also falsely state that when one views a live video stream — with no opportunity to be called upon to offer public comment — then one is attending a meeting. That is not true; one is only listening or viewing the meeting. The difference is that when doing the latter, one would not be able to provide public comment if invited to do so, by the Mayor. Clearly, as an active member of the Arizona bar, you are capable of understanding that no one should accept the thinly-veiled ruse in your letter, attached.

The additional mechanism of providing only written public comment is not sufficient, since there is no guarantee that the City Council members will read the written public comments. The public prefers to exercise its inalienable rights to redress our grievances to our government using our own voices, face-to-face, employing all of the tools of persuasion open to residents of the State of Arizona — the very same tools the City of Scottsdale is offering City of Scottsdale employee, Telecom Policy Coordinator Keith Niederer, when he presents this presentation via a Zoom link.

I have politely and repeatedly asked for any of the following that would enable the public to participate this evening:

  • A Zoom link to attend the 9/22/2020 public meeting — a Zoom link similar to that that which the City has provided to Telecom Policy Coordinator Keith Niederer so he can make his presentation to the Council this evening from his desk
  • A Telephone number to which the public could call in to attend the public meeting (and from which to potentially give public comment)
  • A welcome to attend the meeting in person, following all recommended masking and social distancing recommendations.

The employees of City of Scottsdale, AZ have repeatedly and willfully chosen to break AZ law by not providing any of the three reasonable options for the public to attend the 9/22/2020 public meeting.

I am writing to put the following people on notice for not following their oaths and for not following the Arizona State Constitution and Arizona laws (see Appendix A: Authorities) and (excepting Mr. Tim Curtis), for refusing to return calls — all day — on 9/22/2020 — an astronomical act of hiding.

  • Mayor, Jim Lane | 480-312-2433
  • City Manager, Jim Thompson | 480-312-2811
  • Assistant City Manager, Brent Stockwell | 480-312-7288
  • Assistant City Manager Bill Murphy | 480-312-7954
  • City Attorney Sherry Scott | 480-312-7816
  • City Clerk Carolyn Jagger | 480-312-2411
  • Telecom Policy Coordinator Keith Niederer | 480-312-2953
  • IT Director Brad Hartig | 480-312-7615

Thank you.

Appendix A: Authorities

https://scientists4wiredtech.com/readinglaw/

City of Scottsdale City Council Oath:

“I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and defend them against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of the office of City Council Member according to the best of my ability, so help me God.”

I. Arizona State Constitution

ARTICLE II. DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

  • Section 2. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

  • Section 3. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.

  • Section 4. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

  • Section 5. The right of petition, and of the people peaceably to assemble for the common good, shall never be abridged.

  • Section 6. Every person may freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects . . .

  • Section 8. No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.

  • Section 17. . . . No private property shall be taken or damaged for public or private use without just compensation having first been made, paid into court for the owner . . .

ARTICLE IV. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

→ PART 1. INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM → 1. Legislative authority; initiative and referendum → Section 1:

To preserve the public peace, health, or safety . . .

(1) . . . The people reserve the powers to

  • propose laws

  • enact or reject such laws at the polls, independently of the legislature;

  • approve or reject at the polls any act, or item, section, or part of any act, of the legislature.

ARTICLE XXVII. REGULATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE

What is a meeting? A meeting is defined as a gathering, in person or through technological devices, of a quorum of members of a public body at which they discuss, propose, or take legal action. This includes any gathering, regardless of its label that falls within this definition. A.R.S § 38-431(4).

II. Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 38 Open Meeting Law

“All meetings of any public body shall be public meetings and all persons so desiring shall be permitted to attend and listen to the deliberations and proceedings.” A.R.S. § 38- 431.01(A).

“It is the public policy of this state that meetings of public bodies be conducted openly" A.R.S. § 38-431.09

A.R.S. § 38-431.01. Meetings shall be open to the public

F. All or any part of a public meeting of a public body may be recorded by any person in attendance by means of a tape recorder or camera or any other means of sonic reproduction, provided that there is no active interference with the conduct of the meeting.

. . .

H. 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.  
A.R.S. 38-431.04 Writ of mandamus

. . .

Where the provisions of this article are not complied with, a court of competent jurisdiction may issue a writ of mandamus requiring that a meeting be open to the public.
A.R.S. 38-431.09 Declaration of public policy

It is the public policy of this state that meetings of public bodies be conducted openly and that notices and agendas be provided for such meetings which contain such information as is reasonably necessary to inform the public of the matters to be discussed or decided.  Toward this end, any person or entity charged with the interpretations of this article shall construe this article in favor of open and public meetings.

III. Arizona Open Meeting Law Booklet

https://www.azoca.gov/wp-content/uploads/Open-Meeting-Law-Booklet-2020.pdf

7.7.7 Calls to the Public

A public body may include a call to the public on a meeting agenda. A.R.S. § 38-431.01(H); see also Section 7.10.1 for more discussion on public participation.

The best practice is to include language similar to the following:

"Call to the Public: This is the time for the public to comment. Members of the Board may not discuss items that are not specifically identified on the agenda. Therefore, pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.01(H), action taken as a result of public comment will be limited to directing staff to study the matter, responding to any criticism or scheduling the matter for further consideration and decision at a later date."

A call to the public is not mandatory, but the public body may put a call to the public on their agenda. See A.R.S. § 38-431.01(H). The public does not have a right to disrupt the meeting; however, the public body may allow comment from the public via a call to the public. See A.R.S. § 38-431.01(H) and see question 10.
IV. OPEN MEETING LAW 101:
Arizona’s Open Meeting Law in a Nutshell

https://www.azoca.gov/wp-content/uploads/Open-Meeting-Law-101.pdf

What constitutes a meeting?

A meeting is a gathering, in person or through technological devices of a quorum of a public body at which they discuss, propose or take legal action, including deliberations. A.R.S. § 38-431(4). This includes telephone and e-mail communications.

Who must comply with Open Meeting Law?

Public bodies. "Public body" means the legislature, all boards and commissions of this state or political subdivisions, all multi-member governing bodies of departments, agencies, institutions and instrumentalities of the state or political subdivisions, including without limitation all corporations and other instrumentalities whose boards of directors are appointed or elected by the state or political subdivision. Public body includes all quasi-judicial bodies and all standing, special or advisory committees or subcommittees of, or appointed by, the public body. A.R.S. § 38-431(6).

The public has a right to:

  • Attend (transitive verb) 1 : to be present at; to go to
  • Speak, when called to do so
  • Tape record
  • Videotape

Calls to the Public

An open call to the public is an agenda item that allows the public to address the public body on topics of concern within the public body’s jurisdiction, even though the topic is not specifically included on the agenda. Ariz. Att’y Gen. Op. I99-006; Op. No. I78-001.
V. Arizona Attorney General Opinions

"While the Arizona Open Meeting Law (OML) grants members of the public an absolute right to attend public meetings, the OML neither requires nor prohibits participation by the public in the discussions and deliberations of a public body. Ariz. Att’y Gen. Op. Nos. I78-001 and I83-049 . . . With an open call to the public, therefore, the governing body may be presented with comments, concerns, or questions regarding non-agenda items, as well as agendized items. The context, spirit, and purpose of the OML thus support an open call to the audience. The the language of the OML limits public body discussion, consideration, or decision making to matters listed on the agenda.

Examining the language of the OML within the legislative framework as a whole leads to the conclusion that "consider" means more than to individually and passively "listen" or "think about." Interpreting "consider" to mean "listen," "think about," or "hear" would result in an absurdity because it would mean that members of public bodies would violate the OML when they attend the same conferences or seminars, read the same correspondence from constituents, or watch the same television news programs. Such a result is obviously untenable. See Robinson v. Lintz, 101 Ariz. 448, 452, 420 P.2d 923, 927 (1966) (stating that a statute should be interpreted "to give it a fair and sensible meaning").

The Attorney General’s Office has recognized that a "call to the public" may be used if the members of the public body properly limit their responses to any item raised. See Romo v. Kirschner, 181 Ariz. 239, 240, 889 P.2d 32, 33 (App. 1995) (an agency’s interpretation of a statute that it implements is generally afforded great weight).

. . . A ruling of "we will not listen to yours or any views favoring rezoning at this rezoning hearing" would not pass constitutional muster. See City of Madison, Joint Sch. Dist. No. 8 v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Comm’n, 429 U.S. 167, 175-76 & n.8 (1976)."

VI. City of Scottsdale, City Council Study Session Precedent

Oct 22, 2019 — WORK STUDY SESSION NOTICE AND AGENDA

"To provide an opportunity for public input, yet continue to maximize the amount of time available for the Council to have focused discussions, a total of fifteen minutes will be set aside at the beginning of each work study session for public comment on the agendized items.

Appendix B: Rebuttal of Sherry Scott’s 9/21/2020 Letter

September 21, 2020 | Original letter here.

VIA EMAIL

Christine Cracchiolo
Forakis Law Firm
316 E Palm Lane
Phoenix, AZ

RE: Meeting scheduled for 09/22/2020 Request to attend live meeting and to comment public

   

Dr. Ms. Cracchiolo:

Scott:

Please be advised that the City of is represented by the City Attorney’s Office. As such , I am requesting that you direct any further communications to the City, which would include the Scottsdale City Clerk, that are related to your client’s assertion of a legal right directly to me as the City’s Attorney.

The City’s Agenda for the upcoming electronic meeting, including how public comment will taken, has already been noticed and Under the Arizona Open Meeting Law, it is now late for the City to amend its agenda to public comment to any differently for the September 22, 2020.

S4WT: This is immaterial. Arizona has a state Open Meetings law that gives the public the right to attend tonight’s meeting.

Scott:

As I am sure you are the City Council meetings are held electronically as a result of the City’s Declaration of Emergency related to COVID-19 and the County’s Covering. However, the City’s electronic meetings are streamed in real time as set forth in the Agenda language so that the public can virtually attend and listen to the public Council meetings.

S4WT: I had a conversation with Assistant City Manager Brent Stockwell at around 5:15 pm on Mon Sept 21, 2020. He told me that all of the Council members would be attending the meeting in the chambers. Either way . . . whatever way the City Council members attend this meeting, the public has the same right to attend this meeting.

The public has a state Open Meetings law that gives the public the right to attend tonight’s meeting.

Scott:

There is absolutely no legal right for your client to verbally address the Council prior to the Council Work Study Session item currently placed on the 22, 2020 Agenda.

S4WT: That’s right. There is a legal right to attend the meeting. We are enforcing that right. The ability to speak, apparently is governed by the Mayor’s decision to allow public comment . . . and there is precedence for doing that from Oct 19, 2019 Study session when the Mayor allowed 5 speakers x 3 minutes each for 15 minutes of public comment. This is all explained here –>

Scott:

As your letter itself notes, the Arizona Open Meeting law provides citizens with the right to attend and listen to the meeting. Again, that right is being met because your client will be abk to virtually attend.

S4WT:

Scott:

Again, that right is being met because your client will be able to virtually attend

S4WT: Nice try, but no. Attending is not just listening. Check the plain definitions of these words.

Scott:

The electronically held City Council meeting

S4WT: Please confirm in writing how each City Council member intends to attend tonight’s meeting:

  • Which ones will attend in person in the City Council chambers?
  • Which ones will attend virtually, and which technologyu will they use: Zoom video conference software? Go To Meeting Video Conference software? Microsoft Teams Video Conference software? Telephone?
  • What is good for the Council member is good enough for the public which HAS THE RIGHT to attend tonight’s meeting.

Scott:

. . . and listen to everything that is said during this Council meeting in real time.

S4WT: Once again, that is viewing/listening (on TV/live video stream), not attending.

Scott:

Not only is this right being met,

S4WT: Nice try, but no. The right to ATTEND the meeting is NOT being met.

Scott:

. . . but the City is also providing your client with an additional public comment opportunity in written form.

S4WT: The offer to send in written comment, that might or might not be read by the council (NOTHING requires Council members to read the comments) is orthogonal to ATTENDING the meeting.

Scott:

The City is accepting written public comments for items listed on the agenda prior to the meeting as explained in the Agenda itself. The written public comments could also contain a link to a video, if that is your client’s desire, so that her voice can be heard and her image can be seen as part of her written public comment.

S4WT: The City has a legal duty to allow the public to ATTEND the meeting. Full stop. One again, the offer to send in link to a video, one that might or might not be viewed by the council (NOTHING requires Council members to view the video) is orthogonal to ATTENDING the meeting. I suggest you watch this 30-minute video: https://youtu.be/o26Y7Tgm6wE

Scott:

Please also be advised that this item is not agendized for formal Council action.

S4WT: That is immaterial. The public has a legal right to ATTEND the meeting.

Scott:

Although the Council is going to review the public comments and listen to a City Staff presentation; discuss the item; and potentially direct staff regarding any follow-up or additional staff action they would like to see, no formal City Council action will be taken on the 5G wireless Work Study Session item on September 22, 2020.

S4WT:"potentially direct staff regarding any follow-up or additional staff action" is about which we are requesting the Council to hear 15 minutes of testimony.

Scott:

I appreciate your client’s interest and passion related to this matter and look forward to reading (or listening to) her public comment.

S4WT: You will have every opportunity to listen to public comment in real-time from the public, once the City grants the public the right to ATTEND the meeting.

Thank you,
   

Sherry R. Scott
City Attorney, Scottsdale, AZ