by A mother was physically removed from an Arizona government council meeting in front of her 10-year-old child after raising concerns about a city official’s contract on Tuesday, August 20.
In footage from the City of Wonders meeting, Rebekah Massie is heard being accused of professional misconduct by a city employee. Surprise Mayor Skip Hall responds that Massie agreed not to directly attack individual city employees by agreeing to speak at the meeting.
“Oral communication during a city council meeting may not be used to make accusations or complaints against any city employee or body member, regardless of whether that person is identified in the presentation by name or by any reference other that is proposed to be done. recognize him or her,” Hall tells Massie.
“That’s fine, fine and good, but that’s a violation of my First Amendment rights,” Massie is heard saying.
Hall calls for Massie’s removal from office. Massie responds by asking her if it was necessary to remove her because her 10-year-old daughter was present.
An officer then tries to remove Massie, who resists him, and is subsequently placed under arrest. According to case records, she was cited for third-degree trespassing. Credit: City of Surprise via Storyful
Video transcript
Um So I’ll take this time.
Um I know you have to go into the electronic session.
So, out of respect for that, about the item I asked to speak about earlier than during item six on the agenda for consent as it relates to the city attorney’s employment contract.
Um So, I’m going to start this in the contractual agreement with Mr. Robert Wingo.
There is a condition that says he is able to renegotiate his rate of pay for an exceptional job.
The University of Cambridge defines exceptional as something that is much more than usual, especially in terms of skill, intelligence, quality, et cetera, ie. what is not expected from someone in a role and I am concerned about more funds being allocated to him specifically for a few different. reasons.
Point number one is according to an article published in the independent wonder just shy of 12 months ago by Jason Stone.
Um the city attorney is the second highest paid person in the city as a whole for surprise employees.
And at that time, he was listed as making about $266,000 a year when this becomes important he is 11th overall in the entire state and in fact he only makes $10,000 again when the article was printed less than the attorney in Scottsdale and Scottsdale. there are about 100,000 people more than what covers surprise.
Um, in recent months many violations or alleged violations have been discovered.
In blatant disregard, I would say not only the Arizona revised statutes, the state bar rules of professional conduct, but also the Arizona State Constitution and the Bill of Rights at the federal level.
Um Title 16, I won’t repeat everything but we are all too well and aware of what happened during the election season and the violations that were committed.
The city clerk is our election official.
Nothing was done with the violations and the city attorney did nothing as far as that title nine and 38 pieces of conflict of interest information and it was considered that there was a conflict of interest title 39.
There are many public records requests that I currently have open that are listed as pending legal review that I am entitled to request.
I have to interrupt you here because, okay, are you going to set up a timer?
This is the public meeting forum you agree to when you speak and I want to read this to you that verbal communication during a city council meeting cannot be used to make accusations or complaints against any employee of the city or members thereof. the body, regardless of whether that person is identified in the presentation by name or by any other reference that identifies him or her.
That’s all fine.
Well, and good, but that’s a violation of my first amendment, right?
That’s it, then, this is your warning.
Okay, a warning for what a warning to attack the city attorney personally.
This is factual information.
It doesn’t matter.
You are violating my first amendment.
This is how you agree to it.
When you first speak, this is the unconstitutional form.
Mayor’s Hall.
Well, it’s not unconstitutional.
It is.
And if the Supreme Court, I got up here and I could swear to you for three minutes straight and it’s protected speech at the Supreme Court.
It is.
You, why don’t you look at case law?
No, you can’t.
I can.
So if you want to terrorize the entourage for this, do you want to be an escort for violating my amended rights?
You are violating my first amendment rights.
That’s your opinion.
It is not a matter of opinion.
Would you like to be escorted out?
MS Massey?
So that is going to happen and it will happen in the future.
Also, whenever you attack it, that’s why you change the rules or that’s why you change the rules.
This is placed on the back of this form.
I understand Mayor Hall, but that is completely unconstitutional.
It is not possible.
Head of management.
Could someone come down here and escort Ms Massie?
Is that necessary in front of my 10 year old daughter?
You are going to accompany me out for my express, she can go with you.
I’m not leaving.
Um I’m not, I’m making my point, don’t touch me.
Don’t put your hands on me.
Don’t put your hands on me.
Don’t put your hands on me.
Why am I keeping it?
About what?
All right.
So I will, yeah, I mean she can go out there.
All right.
Uh I will, I will entertain an offer to enter the ESS offer to enter the E session and then move to the second.
All those in favor.
Say hi, hi.
We’re probably going into session E.
