Shawn RaymundoArizona Republic
A First Amendment advocacy group is preparing to sue Surprise, where a community activist was arrested at a City Council meeting after the mayor cut her off from speaking and had her removed.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression announced Monday morning on social media that it would see Surprise in court on behalf of Rebekah Massie, the outspoken 32-year-old resident.
"We're outraged about the blatant disregard of Rebekah's First Amendment rights," said Adam Steinbaugh, a FIRE attorney, in an email to The Arizona Republic late last week. "Rebekah, and all Americans, have the right to criticize public officials at a City Council meeting without being led out in handcuffs."
During last week's council meeting, Massie questioned the city attorney's performance and compensation. It prompted Mayor Skip Hall to stop her from talking and accuse her of "attacking the city attorney."
He cited Surprise's policy restricting people from complaining about city employees during public comments.
The two argued over the rule's constitutionality, eventually leading Hall to have a Surprise police officer escort her out of the council chambers.
Afterward, Massie was arrested on suspicion of trespassing, a class 3 misdemeanor. She's also facing class 1 misdemeanor charges for reportedly resisting arrest and obstructing government operations.
A class 3 misdemeanor carries up to 30 days injailand up to $500 infines. Penalties for a class 1 misdemeanor, the most serious crime without being a felony, include up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $2,500.
The prospective litigation comes months after Massie lobbed complaints against Councilmember Aly Cline, a then-candidate for Surprise's mayoral seat. Massie, a vocal critic of the city's handling of traffic issues, accused Cline of censorship and violating freedom of speech for removing campaign signs on public property.
The council later censured Cline after an investigation determined she had likely violated state law or city policy.
City management did not respond to an interview request Monday.
A spokesperson for FIRE told The Republic that they do not know when they will file the suit.
Surprise not only city in Maricopa County with 'complaints' policy
At issue is whether the city's rule against criticizing city officials during public meetings and hearings violates the First Amendment and Arizona's open meeting law.
The policy states that people can use their three minutes of speaking time to comment on matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the city and the council. However, it also states they cannot "lodge charges or complaints against any employee of the City or members of the body."
Such grievances can only be made to the city manager "during normal business hours."
According to the city, that policy — printed on the back of the speaker request forms people submit to the city ahead of meetings — has been in place since "at least" September 2015.
The city last week couldn't say why the rule was created.
Hall and most city leaders didn't respond to calls seeking comment Monday. Councilmembers Chris Judd, Patrick Duffy and Jack Hastings answered but limited their comments because they suspected a forthcoming lawsuit.
Both Judd and Hastings said they were unaware that the language restricting complaints against city employees was part of the city's policy.
"Apparently, none of us have ever paid attention to it," Judd said, later adding, "I'd prefer people come yell at us. That's kind of the point."
Hastings echoed the sentiment.
"I personally don't have a problem with criticism," he said.
A review of public comment policies posted by major metro Phoenix cities on their websites shows Avondale shares the same language as Surprise.
That provision, Avondale explained, is not meant to bar people from making complaints.
"Rather, it’s there to guide the public on the appropriate channel to lodge a formal complaint against an employee," a city spokesperson said in an email late Monday.
Neighboring Glendale restricts people from making "personal attacks" against city officials, staff and other members of the public.
Other cities prohibit political speech, profanity, and yelling and outbursts. Some also restrict audience members from applauding.
Chandler's rules of conduct for public speaking recognize a person's right to "criticize policies, procedures, programs and services."
Arizona's open meeting law allows cities to determine whether to include a "call to the public" during meetings. If it does, it's subject to "reasonable" restrictions on the time, place and manner in which public comments can be made.
The open meeting law also states that individuals can "address the public body on any issue within the jurisdiction of the public body."
Judd said he thought concerns related to a city attorney fall within the jurisdiction of the City Council.
"Absolutely, the City Council appoints the city attorney," he said.
Regarding the rule's constitutionality, Hastings acknowledged that he doesn't "know, legally, what the right answer is," as he's not a lawyer. However, he added, "I would have just let her finish talking."
Duffy agreed.
"I definitely would've handled that a different way," Duffy said. "I wouldn't have had any issue with her finishing speaking."
Shawn Raymundo covers the West Valley cities of Glendale, Peoria and Surprise. Reach him at sraymundo@gannett.com or follow him on X @ShawnzyTsunami.
