AG Brings the Hammer Down on SUSD for Open Meeting Law Violations - Demands Greenburg's Removal
...mild gloating ahead
jean louis mazieres. IMG_011OH.Jean Marc Nattier.1683-1766 Paris Persée, assisté par Minerve, pétrifie Phinée et ses compagnons en leur présentant la tête de Méduse. Creative Commons License.
In this Stack:
The Attorney General sues Scottsdale Unified and Greenburg - personally - on the basis of my OML complaint
In a series of unusual board meetings last August, SUSD really, really didn’t want to hear opposition to mask mandates
A warrior mom faces down a hubris-filled school board
AG (Finally) Brings the Hammer Down
Wouldn’t you know that of the two Open Meeting Law complaints against Scottsdale I filed ten months ago, the one I’ve written the least about is the one the AG picks up for full enforcement? You can read about the case here, here and here. Not only is the AG seeking enforcement of the OML in Scottsdale, he’s also seeking a court order to potentially remove Greenburg from office - a power granted the court under the OML statutes. This is a unique feature of the Arizona OML by the way.
Read the whole AG complaint here. This is the relief sought:
The Open Meeting Law Complaints
In 2021 I filed two OML complaints against Scottsdale Unified:
August 20th: a 248-page complaint with diligence report wholly focused on the pervasive use of closed-door subcommittees, especially for curriculum adoptions (complaint available here);
and
August 25th: a short supplemental complaint arising out of egregious OML and First Amendment violations arising out of a series of unusual board meetings in August, 2021 (the “First Amendment Complaint” available here).
Except for a passing reference in a prior Stack and a few tweets like this, I didn’t promote the First Amendment Complaint because, ultimately, it is the exposure of the unlawful subcommittee system, particularly with respect to curriculum adoptions, that will have the more lasting impact on schools across the state.
The first page of the complaint (available here) summarizes the events that became the subject of the AG’s action. And while I know others filed OML complaints for the third meeting - including the Goldwater Institute, on information and belief, I’m the only one to address all three August 2021 meetings:
Here’s the gist - the district played silly games to structure two August 2021 board meetings in a way to avoid hearing complaints from parents fighting mask mandates - and then, when public comment was opened, the board flat-out prohibited public comments on mask mandates. Their justification, relying on a wholly fictitious distinction between “public hearing” and “public meeting”, reflected consistently bad lawyering by someone at (or for) the district.
Next, in a shockingly brazen move at a third meeting the same month, the board refused to let those wishing to speak at public comment to actually enter the school building - depriving them the right to attend and listen as required by the OML. Citing “police concerns for safety” because parents had assembled outside attracting local media coverage, the board forced parents to wait in the heat where security guards would escort them, one-by-one, to make their comment. Thirty-nine people peacefully waited their turn under the Arizona sun. For hours.
I can understand the AG’s probable rationale to prioritize the second complaint - the First Amendment is a constitutional right. In the hierarchy of rights, free speech before government officials is a necessary condition for participatory democracy. And when the Scottsdale board put speech restrictions on a call to the public to prohibit citizens from even mentioning the phrase “mask mandate” - that was an outrageous censuring of speech.
Not really even a close call.
Comments to public officials at public meetings where public comment is solicited are quintessentially “petitions for redress” straight out of the Bill of Rights. You have a right to the soapbox in the public square. Government officials do not have authority to tell you what your grievance is - but they do have a duty to hear about it when they’ve opened the meeting - or hearing, whatever - to do so.
Hubris and Shutting Down Dissent
And yet at the August 17th, 2021 virtual meeting - just as the board was contemplating mask mandates for the new school year - callers were abruptly and humiliatingly interrupted. Disgraced former board president Greenburg repeatedly hung-up on parents if they veered into the question of “mask mandates” - or mask mandate-adjacent topics. He screened the expression of their thoughts. With the push of a button. Solely on the content of their speech.
Watching from home, I took notes in utter disbelief that he was making it this easy for me as thirty-two members of the public called in:
How many people simply heard Greenburg’s restrictions and didn’t even bother to call? We’ll never know. That’s called chilling free speech - you can only see it in its absence.
And it worked. At a second meeting that August with the same artificially bifurcated agenda and speech restrictions, only two people called in to make comment. From thirty-two callers only days before.
Mission accomplished.
Scottsdale’s systemic violations of the OML, its culture of administrative secrecy and smug disdain for parents had metastasized. They were so used to getting away with it, they took it to a new level - crossing into constitutional rights territory - all to shut down dissent and prevent the public expression of opposing views:
The “Jesus F*&king Christ, People” Moment Heard Round the World
Turning to the third August meeting, this is the one where at least thirty-nine determined parents and even more supporters were forced to wait outside in sweltering heat to dissuade them from speaking to the board. As a scheduled, regular monthly meeting, the board’s policies required them to take public comment. They were stuck - and the media was there to cover it all. Here at last was the showdown between maskers and anti-maskers that the media had been waiting for. Would children be forced to mask up in Scottsdale?
So maybe its not entirely surprising that Greenburg would go full-douchebag on a concerned parent, the intrepid Amanda Wray. She had the audacity to wait out the heat, stand up before the board, and use public records of internal district emails to call them out on something. It was too much for Greenburg:
News coverage of the blaspheming board president was swift. A classic “hot mic” moment. The 27-year old board president, with no children of his own in the district, had lost his cool. A few months later, the whole world would learn that he and his father had reams of information on parents, including Ms. Wray: the now infamous “Google dossier” that is the subject of pending litigation.
But Greenburg’s outburst at Ms. Wray was more than just a hot mic event with political implications. The rules for engaging speakers making public comments under the OML are designed to ensure the public is free to express themselves, without interruption from the board. Greenburg, a New York state licensed attorney and recipient of OML training every year he’s been on the Scottsdale board, knew he could not interrupt a speaker prior to conclusion of the public comment period.
The AG calls him out for it and now seeks to expel him from office:
So, there you go. While I am disappointed that the AG hasn’t acted on the unlawful curriculum adoptions and subcommittees OML complaint, I’m happy that justice may yet prevail, playing out like a Greek epic poem - with warrior moms facing hubris-filled councilmen with their incorrigibly corrupt institutions that have captured their children. What’s not to like?
End.
Create your profile
Only paid subscribers can comment on this post
Check your email
For your security, we need to re-authenticate you.
Click the link we sent to , or click here to sign in.