Page City Council Investigated

By Bob Hembree
Posted 10/16/24

In what appears to be a coordinated political attack on Page City Council members, the Arizona Attorney General’s (AG) Office received multiple complaints alleging open meeting law (OML) …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Page City Council Investigated

Posted

In what appears to be a coordinated political attack on Page City Council members, the Arizona Attorney General’s (AG) Office received multiple complaints alleging open meeting law (OML) violations. The AG’s Open Meeting Law Enforcement Team conducted a two-month investigation into the claims.

One of the allegations claims a topic of an Apr. 13, 2022, Council executive session violated state laws. The complainant cited one of the state’s nine acceptable purposes for executive sessions. For example, Council can choose to hold executive sessions for legal consultations, employee matters, security plans, contract negotiations and real estate transactions.

There were six executive session topics listed on the April 13, 2022, City Council agenda. The first five were real estate transactions and the final item was the Balloon Regatta event.

“Pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.03 (A)(4) The City Council may vote to go into Executive Session for the purpose of discussion or consultation with the attorneys of the public body in order to consider its position and instruct its attorneys regarding the public body's position regarding contracts that are the subject of negotiations, in pending or contemplated litigation or in settlement discussions conducted in order to avoid or resolve litigation.

“Balloon Regatta Event. Discussion and possible action by the city council pertaining to the balloon regatta event. City Manager and staff directed to continue conversation with balloon regatta board to ensure a successful annual balloon regatta event.”

The complainant claims “there was no contract being negotiated and no pending or potential litigation arising from the Event.”

The AG investigation concluded, “Based upon our review of the confidential executive session information provided with the Council’s Response, we find that the Balloon Regatta Event was properly noticed for discussion at an executive session pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.03(A)(4).”

The AG also received a complaint the “Priorities” section of the published regular meetings agendas lacked detail. Section 5 of meeting agendas is “Priority List.” It’s essentially a template placeholder for discussion and possible action for Council strategic priorities and individual priorities. The online agenda items links to City Council documents listing priorities. Most of the time there’s no topic listed, and it’s skimmed over in meetings. In recent meetings, after roll call, Mayor Bill Diak typically says, “Priority list: nothing to discuss this evening” and moves on to the next agenda item.

The complaint states “the listed priorities are so broad as to encompass basically every possible topic for Council discussion and therefore the Council’s Agenda Item 5 violates the OML because it fails to give the public detail that is ‘reasonably necessary to inform the public of the matters to be discussed or decided.’” 

The Council corrected the practice in June, two months before the investigation began. Before June, the mayor would announce the priority sections in the meetings, then look at the councilors on either side of him to give them an opportunity to speak. Generally, councilors were silent, and the mayor moved on to the next item of business. A rare exception was at the April 24, 2024, council meeting when Councilor Richard Leightner reaffirmed three of his top priorities in the Priority segment of the meeting. He simply read from the existing public document outlining his individual priorities. No discussion or action took place after his reading. This occurred at the same meeting Council tabled a potential bid award for phase one of the Downtown Revitalization project, otherwise known as “Streetscape.” Many affiliated with or sympathetic to the Page Action Committee’s resistance to the project were in attendance that night.

The AG’s office agreed with the complainant. “We understand that the Council has amended its agenda practices, effective June 2024. Response, p. 3. Now, if a particular Councilmember would like to discuss a ‘priority’ at an upcoming meeting, he or she must timely notify the City Clerk so that that topic can be added to Section 5 of the appropriate agenda.”

The AG investigation cites a June 12, 2024, Priority item listed for discussion that gave sufficient detail for an agenda listing.

“While we cannot conclude that clear reference to a particular strategic priority will, in all future circumstances, comport with A.R.S. § 38-431.09(A)’s reasonable notice requirement, we find the Council’s amended practices to be an appropriate remedy to the prior violations. We, therefore, impose no further penalty.”

The AG’s office wrote, “Multiple complainants have alleged both general and specific OML violations with respect to the City’s proposed changes to Lake Powell Boulevard (“Streetscape Project”). Once announced, the Streetscape Project was met with considerable opposition from residents, including some of the complainants here.

“Complainants allege that the Streetscape Project has never been approved by the Council at a public meeting and that the Project came as a ‘surprise’ to City residents when it was announced in the Fall of 2023.”

The investigation found the complainants’ allegations meritless, and that Council approval was public and documented at multiple meetings beginning Feb. 26, 2022, when the Council approved a $219,408 contract with J2 Engineering & Environmental Design to prepare the Master Plan.

There were other meritless accusations alleging open meeting violations regarding the Streetscape project. The AG investigation found no violations in any of them.

Occasionally a barrage of blindly fired accusations nicks something – or leads to someone getting fired.

The City Manager’s Annual Staff Presentations took place Feb. 13, 2024. The City Clerk published a Notice of Possible Quorum advising that Councilmembers might attend but no deliberations or legal action would take place.

The complainant claims Councilmembers made statements at their Feb. 14, 2024 regular meeting suggesting they had prior, non-public discussions about significant city matters, including at the Staff Presentations the day before, in violation of the OML.

Council confirmed a quorum of its members were present at the Feb. 13 presentations and discussed information presented by City staff. Council conceded that the Feb. 13 meeting should have been handled as any other public meeting of the Council. The error was attributed to a misunderstanding. Instead of providing a standard public meeting notice and agenda as instructed, the then-City Clerk posted a “Notice of Possible Quorum.”

The mistake contributed to the firing of a newly hired City Clerk for mismanagement. The city’s current Clerk was hired to replace the fired Clerk and received Open Meeting Law training from the City Attorney and a retired City Clerk.

The AG investigation report states, “We agree with the Council’s conclusion that the Feb. 13 presentation should have been, but was not, noticed in accordance with A.R.S. § 38-431.02. However, we find no evidence that this was a knowing violation and conclude that the City has implemented appropriate remedial measures to ensure OML compliance going forward. We therefore impose no further penalties.”