Letters: Massie should have been able to speak, but also obey police

Your article about police escorting Rebekah Massie out of the City Council meeting has generated much conversation, so good job.

I’m curious about the backstory. I watched the meeting online, learning that Mrs. Massie was indeed guilty of disobeying of a police order.

However, there is another side to this resident. She had already addressed the Council several times on various issues. Each time she spoke pleasantly, with great specificity about development, etc. In fact, on one occasion, she made a point of order before a vote was taken stating someone on the Council should recuse herself from the vote as that someone had received a campaign donation from the party involved in the issue being voted.

And, in fact, the councilmember did recuse herself. Mrs. Massie deserves credit for effecting a proper resolution.

Mrs. Massie also did an excellent job of explaining why the city attorney, Robert Wingo, and his $266,000 salary is sufficient as is. She first mentioned that her plan had been to present her case opposing an increase in pay during Item No. 6 discussion in consent agenda, but instead she was going to present it now, during call to action.

She interrupted herself to say, “I know you guys need to go into a session, out of respect for that,” (This kind of comment is not consistent with a troublemaker). She proceeded to present a reasonable basis for no raise since: $266,000 is the second highest salary in the entire city of Surprise, it is the 11th highest salary in the whole state, and it is only $10,000 lower than the city attorney of Scottsdale which has about 100,000 more residents.

All was righteous until that point. It was after she named reports of “alleged” violations of Mr. Wingo that she was stopped. Sorry, Mrs. Massie, the rule of law is that you must obey the police and you did not do that.

What she should have done before the police were called is explain that she was not in conflict with the policy which states, “Oral communications during the City Council meeting may not be used to lodge charges or complaints against any employee.”

She did not “lodge a complaint.” She simply repeated what had been alledged. Please note that the policy for conduct at council meetings also states,”4) Pursuant to A.R.S 38-431.01(H), at the conclusion of an open call to the public, individual council members may, in their sole discretion, respond to criticism made by those who have addressed the public body”

Could someone enlighten me as to why a councilmember is given an opportunity to respond to any criticism if no one is allowed to make a criticism?

Mrs. Massie was entitled to speak her mind respectfully as she had spoken all night, the Council was wrong to stop her, and she was wrong not to address their pronouncement in a better fashion.

Meanwhile, some brave councilmember should introduce an amendment to delete any and all prohibitions against a resident saying respectfully anything they wish in their three minutes.