“Adopt Resolution No. 13584 amending the City of Scottsdale Rules of Council Procedure.”
Sounds about as exciting as watching a cactus grow, right?
Not so, here in Scottsdale …
The item at the Jan. 13 City Council meeting was presented by Interim City Attorney Luis Santaella and City Clerk Ben Lane – the duo behind contentious rule changes in December; at that meeting, the most anguished move was to eliminate a public comments section that traditionally began Scottsdale meetings.
As Mayor Lisa Borowsky sharply noted, City Council passed “Rules of Council Procedure” in 2011, with amendments in 2013, 2015, 2017 and 2024.
A City Council majority of four – Jan Dubauskas, Barry Graham, Adam Kwasman and Kathy Littlefield – that has been accused by Councilwoman Solange Whitehead of voting in a “bloc” powered through two changes last year.
This week, stiff-arming harsh comments against the idea, they added more changes billed by Santaella/Lane as “based on feedback from councilmembers and city staff and are intended to make our meetings more efficient, civil, and legally sound.”
The new two changes?
One: “direct the city clerk to administratively cancel a council meeting, with the concurrence of the city manager, if the clerk is notified at least two business days in advance that four or more members of the council cannot attend the meeting.”
Two: “allow each councilmember to make a councilmember report at the end of the meeting about items of interest.”
The councilmember reports were pitched as mirroring the mayor’s report at the beginning of meetings; “this would be for information only with no discussion by the City Council. This practice is done by other Arizona cities and towns.”
On the latter, Littlefield said she was behind the idea, as she has been wanting to share “community news” – but was unable to do so, under the previous guidelines.
Borowsky insisted she would have been fine allowing councilmembers to share appreciations without changing the format and Whitehead demanded a study session to hash out “guardrails.”
Both were overruled when the vote was tallied.
‘Mini-mayors’?
With opposition vote Councilwoman Maryanne McAllen relatively muted, Borowsky and Whitehead raged over the new cancellation policy.
As the Santaella/Lane report noted, “Scottsdale boards and commissions follow this practice,” which “helps avoid issues related to the public showing up to meetings that cannot be held due to lack of a quorum …”
Whitehead, for one, was not buying that.
“We have repeatedly – this past year – shut down government, shut down the voices of the people, shut down the voices of businesses – and now it appears that if four members of the city council don’t like the subject matter, we shut down the meeting,” she proclaimed with emotion.
“This makes absolutely no sense – and just as a reminder for anybody who may not know, boards and commissions are not elected. They’re appointed. They provide guidance. They don’t decide. The Council does.
“So (avoiding) tough subjects by getting together and finding three pals to say we don’t want to go to the meeting is silly.”
Noting elected officials can call into meetings if they are away, Whitehead said the change “makes no sense.”
Two public speakers doubled down on Whithead’s critique.
Dan Ishac harkened back to last year’s “Parkingate” controversy in saying Dubauskas, Graham and Kwasman “actively worked to throw our mayor out of the office.”
He called the new cancellation rule “a blatant attempt to prevent the mayor from stalling from calling special meetings.”
Steve Sutton denounced the changes as “insulting our intelligence.
“This is about allowing a four-person bloc of political votes to cancel meetings they don’t want to have because they don’t like the subject– and most likely directed at stopping the mayor from calling special meetings.”
Borowsky bashed the move as “showing a lot of egos and insecurity.
“I’m not a paranoid type of person,” she sneered, “but it does seem to fall in line with the consistent and persistent attempt to make us all mayor up here.”
She concluded that the rule changes were fueled by “quite frankly, jealousy.”
Graham calmly said he gave no value to “audacious claims about motives.”
He said the “staff-driven” agenda item represents “a thoughtful refinement to our rules and procedures.”
Whitehead again pushed for a study session, though she glumly acknowledged: “I realize I’m going to get voted down.”
Kwasman’s counter:
“Just because Councilmember Whitehead doesn’t like it doesn’t mean it’s bad.”
Calling the moves innocuous,” he shared a prediction:
“There’s going to be a lot of 5-2 votes and 4-3 votes in 2026. And that’s OK.”
He then called for a vote on Graham’s motion to pass the rule changes as presented.
The tally, as Kwasman predicted: 4-3 (Dubauskas, Graham, Kwasman, Littlefield, for; Borowsky, McAllen, Whitehead, against).
Before another vote, which foiled her plan of putting an Old Town marketing contract on a future agenda, Borowsky commented:
“It would seem the fix is in.”
After explaining her concerns, the mayor repeated: “The fix is in.”
Borowsky then joined Whitehead and McAllen in voting against Graham’s motion “to take no action” – which passed, 4-3.