Shawn RaymundoArizona Republic
When Peoria leaders met in February togive the city manager a 15% raise, no public discussion occurred.
It was approved as part of a package of other topics that cities and government agencies call the "consent agenda."
That’s the block of items, passed in one vote, that were previously discussed or reviewed or are considered routine or non-controversial — at least, in theory.
Peoria’s councilmembers couldn’t openly speak nor ask city staff questions about the raise. That is, unless the mayor granted a request to “remove” or “pull” the item from the consent agenda.
Councilmembers Denette Dunn and Brad Shafer submitted such requests.
Mayor Jason Beck denied both.
Those marked the 21st and 22nd requests he’s blocked while in office, according to a review of emails The Arizona Republic obtained through a public records request.
The emails reveal that councilmembers cumulatively sent 30 requests to Beck’s office, representing 27 total items asked to be removed from the consent agenda for discussion.
Beck’s repeated refusal to allow councilmembers to weigh in on various topics listed in an open meeting doesn’t violate any state law or local policy.
However, it does conflict with the Arizona attorney general’s guidance on the subject, as outlined in the office’sAgency Handbook.
“A good practice is to require the removal of an item from the consent agenda upon the request of any member of the public body,” according to the open meeting section of the handbook — guidelines on state laws and regulations meant for government employees, officers and attorneys.
To Shafer, Beck’s actions prevent Peoria councilmembers from doing some of the basic functions of their jobs as elected officials and raise questions about the city’s transparency.
“Right now, in Peoria,” Shafer said in January, “I don’t feel like a democratic government exists. I feel like it’s a totalitarian government where the people’s voices are not taken into consideration when decisions are made.”
The Republic made multiple attempts to interview Beck. He and his office did not respond to those requests.
Among the 30 requests that appeared in Beck’s inbox, 24 were Dunn’s.
Beck denied 19.
He’s granted only one of her requests since. It was to pull a Dec. 12 item approving a one-time lump sum payment to city staffers represented by the American Federation of Federal, State, County and Municipal Employees.
The item also was one that Shafer had asked to discuss in public.
Dunn denied multiple interview requests for this story.
Under the Beck administration, Shafer submitted five requests to pull items from the consent agenda, three of which were denied.
Councilmember Jon Edwards submitted one. It was for an ordinance toupdate the service feescharged by the city’s parks, human services and arts departments.
The city’s charter gives the mayor authority, with input from the city manager, to set the council’s agenda for a regular meeting and outlines a process for councilmembers to get an item of interest included.
It does not, however, formalize a policy for consent agendas and removing items.
Only language printed on a council’s regular agenda addresses the topic: “If the Presiding Officer receives a timely notice of a request for removal, an item may be removed from the Consent Agenda for consideration on the Regular Agenda.”
While there hasn’t been an official policy, Shafer noted, the process was the same under Cathy Carlat, Peoria’s previous mayor: email her and copy the city manager.
During the years Shafer was in office while Carlat was mayor, requests weren’t denied, he said.
Carlat echoed the statement, noting that she wanted councilmembers to submit any request they had 24 hours before the meeting so city staff could get a presentation on the item ready.
“It’s just common courtesy,” she said. “And I never ever refused to let someone pull something off consent.”
Danee Garone is the senior staff attorney for the Arizona Ombudsman’s Office.
He pointed to the state’sOpen Meeting Lawto note that as long as cities comply with it, “it’s really in your public body’s discretion” on how to use consent and regular agendas.
As Arizona law requires, government agencies must hold meetings in public. They also must publish agendas that provide information “as reasonably necessary to inform the public of the matters to be discussed or decided.”
The question of who has what authority during a government meeting is a common one Garone gets. Whether a councilmember has the right to speak on topics listed on consent, the Open Meeting Law doesn’t address that, he said.
“I'll hear it from the mayor of a city or town, or I'll hear it from a member of the public body, saying, ‘They won’t put what I want on the public agenda,' or 'No one wants to discuss this, what do I do?’” Garone said. “Well, the Open Meeting Law doesn't address any of that. That's more of a political issue.”
As for citizen input, the Open Meeting Law doesn’t directly open the agency’s decision-making process to public participation, Garone said.
“It's more like a window into what's going on,” he said.
While the residents can’t always participate, they can at least rely on their elected officials to get answers to their questions.
Carlat said, “They have a responsibility to those people, not just the mayor. Each and every one of them has a responsibility to the residents. That’s why the meetings are public.”
Shawn Raymundo covers the West Valley cities of Glendale, Peoria and Surprise. Reach him at sraymundo@gannett.com or follow him on X @ShawnzyTsunami.
