Fountain Hills might completely finish public remark at council conferences after the specter of a lawsuit, a response from city officers that will make the municipality the one one within the Valley to not give its residents this sort of discussion board.
The proposal — beneficial by city legal professional Jennifer Wright, together with an alternative choice of quickly suspending public remark in addition to some remarks from the mayor and council members — comes after a resident complained about non secular proselytizing throughout a gathering. The city obtained a Discover of Declare, the formal precursor to a authorized grievance required by state regulation, on Nov. 4.
Wright stated a suspension would permit for a authorized evaluation of the grievance and for councilmembers to “evaluation and amend” the city’s assembly procedures. The choice proposal permits the council to vote on a decision to instantly amend the procedures.
Mayor Gerry Friedel and the six councilmembers will take into account the proposals on Nov. 18.
If authorised, the suspension would final six months and bar the council from issuing “abstract reviews” and the “name to the general public,” which permits members of the general public 3 minutes every to talk to elected leaders about city points.
The proposal wouldn’t prohibit members of the general public from commenting on particular agenda objects that the council is contemplating. Quite, it might nix the interval the place commenters can talk about no matter they want.
The decision for a everlasting finish to public remark would additionally ban council assembly attendees from applauding, “besides when neighborhood members are being honored by the council.” The present guidelines “requested that applause be saved to a minimal.”
That choice permits the mayor and councilmembers to proceed making normal remarks.
It is unclear which manner the council is leaning. Friedel, Vice Mayor Allen Skillicorn and Councilmembers Hannah Larrabee, Gayle Earle, Rick Watts and Peggy McMahon didn’t reply to a request for remark.
Councilmember Brenda Kalivianakis, who’s working for mayor in 2026, rebuked the proposal as a “gag order” and known as it “the worst concept” within the city’s historical past.
“How can the city successfully attain and hearken to the considerations of the individuals, our bosses, once we refuse to permit them to talk?” she stated.
Bethany Culp, the Fountain Hills resident who threatened to sue the city, known as the proposed suspension of public remark “unwarranted, punitive and a further violation of the First Modification.”
Authorities our bodies aren’t obligated to supply public remark
First Modification skilled Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkley Legislation, disputed Culp’s assertions, nevertheless, noting that public our bodies aren’t legally obligated to supply public remark in any respect.
The road between permissible and non-permissible non secular dialogue, he stated, hinges on whether or not there’s non secular coercion, such because the city strongarming the general public to stick to at least one religion, which Culp claims however that city councilmembers beforehand denied in interviews with The Arizona Republic.
“Dialogue of faith does not violate the (First Modification),” Chemerinsky stated. “To exclude dialogue of faith would violate the First Modification.”
The motion and response in Fountain Hills replicate rising tensions between the city’s conservative and extra reasonable or liberal factions. That is the third occasion in latest months the place the city council has come underneath hearth for potential violations of the First Modification, however specialists say the city hasn’t crossed the road but.
Fountain Hills is not the one municipality to contemplate limiting public remark. Elected leaders in Glendale needed to cease livestreaming the general public remark portion of conferences final yr, hoping to not air inappropriate and offensive speech. They backtracked after the general public swiftly and sharply criticized the concept, calling it censorship. Mesa permits solely three normal public commenters.
Extra: Fountain Hills City Council members retaliate in opposition to native newspaper for its reporting
Prayers, polarizing dialogue after Kirk assassination led to residents’ grievance
Culp complained after a Sept. 16 city assembly. It was the council’s first after the assassination of conservative chief Charlie Kirk. In the course of the session, a number of councilmembers took time to sentence the killing, criticize the political left and discuss their religion.
Vice Mayor Allen Skillicorn cited a Bible verse about calling upon God for salvation, saying those that did so can be reunited with Kirk. Councilmember Hannah Larrabee stated she hoped “all of us” might be as dedicated to God as Kirk.
“Might all of us — once we die — make the demons rejoice,” Larrabee stated. “Might all of us be so brave, so daring, so efficient, so trustworthy, so obedient to the Lord, so relentless within the pursuit of his glory that once we die, all of God’s enemies cheer.”
Members of the general public in the course of the open remark interval made comparable remarks and recited prayers.
Skillicorn and Larrabee stood by their feedback afterward, pointing to non-public non secular freedom. Larrabee stated she by no means tried to transform anybody.
Why resident says Fountain Hills practices violate First Modification
Culp, in her discover of declare, stated the remarks by elected leaders and the mayor’s failure to silence public commenters who prayed violated the First Modification’s Institution Clause and the Arizona Structure, which prevents the federal government from establishing or endorsing a faith.
Culp stated the city allowed residents and councilmembers to “proselytize, learn from scripture, (and) reward Kirk for his zealous promotion of his Christian religion.”
She pointed to statements from Skillicorn, Councilmember Larrabee and resident Ben Larrabee, her husband, who’s working for council in 2026.
“Past politics, what Charlie needed to be remembered for was his religion in Christ Jesus. He desired a happier, more healthy nation and continuously reached throughout the aisle to assist individuals see the reality,” Hannah Larrabee stated from the dais.
Culp added that such statements have been “inherently coercive” as a result of they promoted “one religion over one other” to a “captive viewers.”
In response, Wright first prompt suspending public remark and council reviews for six months, provided that the feedback have been made throughout these intervals. She wrote that the suspension is “moderately calculated” to forestall further claims in opposition to the city in the course of the evaluation of Culp’s declare.
The day earlier than the council assembly, the city up to date its agenda and added the choice to completely finish normal public remark and ban applause.
Wright famous that public remark is allowed however not required by Arizona’s Open Assembly Legislation.
Did Fountain Hills violate the regulation?
Chemerinsky, with Berkley Legislation, didn’t observe the assembly in query, however stated merely discussing non secular views or observing a prayer just isn’t a violation of the First Modification. To violate the First Modification’s Institution Clause, a city would wish to do one thing like solely permit public remark for many who prayed.
He didn’t suppose the mayor’s declining to cease public commenters from utilizing their time to wish breached the First Modification.
“The federal government cannot deal with non secular speech totally different than non-religious speech,” Chemerinsky stated.
Gregg Leslie, government director of Arizona State College’s First Modification Clinic, stated he thought courts would afford some flexibility for the truth that the non secular rhetoric befell after Kirk’s assassination and so long as it wasn’t a recurring pattern.
The ban on applause, he stated, might be permissible “if effectively performed.”
“If they simply say, ‘No applause aside from applauding one thing we do,’ it does look dangerous. It seems like a content-based restriction of speech,” Leslie stated. “When you’re saying it is to cease individuals from interrupting public remark … and it is utilized uniformly, that might be legitimate.”
Resident warns of extra litigation if proposal passes
Culp stated she believes the proposals are retaliation for neighborhood members expressing discontent with the council’s non secular rhetoric and reward of Kirk at a gathering on Nov. 4.
On the assembly, after a resident condemned the council, some within the viewers applauded her. Friedel gaveled the room to order and threatened to clear it, saying that applause was not allowed. When an viewers member advised the mayor he was being “ridiculous,” he known as a 10-minute recess.
It’s common for mayors to gavel rowdy audiences to order throughout contentious conferences. Usually, mayors name for recess if the room can’t be tamed after a number of warnings. On Nov. 4, the recess was known as nearly instantly.
Culp advised The Arizona Republic she would file one other discover of declare in opposition to the city if the suspension handed.
“The suitable response to the discover of declare is to not droop the decision to the general public, however for Friedel to study and abide by the mandates of the federal and state Constitutions and do his job,” Culp stated. “All he wanted to do was use his mind and his gavel.”
Lauren De Younger covers Tempe, Chandler, Maricopa County and transportation for The Republic. Attain her at ldeyoung@azcentral.com.
Taylor Seely is a First Modification Reporting Fellow at The Arizona Republic / azcentral.com. Attain her at tseely@arizonarepublic.com or by cellphone at 480-476-6116.
Seely’s position is funded by means of a collaboration between the Freedom Discussion board and Journalism Funding Companions. Funders don’t present editorial enter.
This text initially appeared on Arizona Republic: Fountain Hills might block public remark at Arizona city’s conferences