When Phoenix City Councilman Sal DiCiccio tried to defend police officers after they had come under attack by Black Lives Matter representatives during the Call to the Audience portion of the City Council meeting, he was shut down by Mayor Greg Stanton. Stanton, with the assistance of the City attorney claimed that DiCiccio would be in violation of Arizona’s Open Meeting law.
Related article: DiCiccio calls for expansion of police body cameras
According to DiCiccio, the City’s attorney had advised him prior to the September 2 meeting, that he could address the criticism of the Black Lives Matter group, but when Stanton interrupted DiCiccio the attorney attempted to reverse course.
Arizona’s Open Meeting law clearly provides for DiCiccio comments: 7.7.7 Calls to the Public. In 2000, the Legislature clarified the limitations on open calls to the public during public meetings. A.R.S. § 38-431.01(H) now provides that a public body may make an open call to the public to allow individuals to address the public body on any issue within the jurisdiction of the public body. Members of the public body may not discuss or take action on matters raised during the call to the public that are not specifically identified on the agenda. Public body members may, however, respond to criticism made by those who have addressed the public body, ask staff to review a matter, or ask that a matter be put on a future agenda.
Despite this, the City’s Public Relations department issued a response that DiCiccio described as “incomplete information leaving out seemingly purposeful language that would be contrary to their opinion.”
That response reads:
“The Open Meeting law permits public bodies to allow members of the public to comment at meetings during a properly conducted “open call to the public.” At properly conducted open calls to the public, individual members of the public body may request that staff follow up on an item or that the item be placed on a future agenda, but they may not dialogue with the presenter or collectively discuss, consider, or decide any item not listed on the agenda.”
Mr. Holm understood that Councilman DiCiccio intended to discuss and respond to public comments. On that basis, he advised Mayor and Council that the response may violate the open-meetings law.”
As DiCiccio noted on FaceBook, “In the city attorney written response he clearly omits the highlighted language in law: respond to criticism made by those who have addressed the public body.” DiCiccio also points out that the City’s attorney “includes language not in law and clearly avoids when an elected representative may answer criticism.” DiCiccio claims that the “City Attorney never asked me what I was going to say at the council meeting. He based his judgment on information he never had.”
Now, DiCiccio reports that his “chief of staff received a message from the PR Department saying they would not work with us,” due to the fact that “they don’t like the messaging.” DiCiccio asserts that the staff is “showing a clear bias toward an alternative point of view.” He concludes, “Add this to the city attorney acting now as a political attorney and giving opinions that are agreeable to one side and not releasing all the information.”
The Black Lives Matter group is expected to speak out at today’s Policy meeting or Wednesday’s formal City Council meeting.
In a message DiCiccio sent out to constituents after the meeting, he wrote, “I fully agree that the other side has the right of free speech, but so do we. I fully understand that there are those politicians that would like to avoid this issue for fear that it could damage their own political lives, but police lives matter too.”