If Gertrude Stein covered Scottsdale politics, she might muse: A bloc is a bloc is a bloc.<\/p>\n
Scottsdale City Council is back in action this week. The Monday and Tuesday back-to-back meetings are the first council regular sessions \u2013 though there was a work study last week \u2013 in two months.<\/p>\n
During the break, the Progress has been analyzing the year-to-date of Scottsdale\u2019s elected officials in alphabetical order.<\/p>\n
The Aug. 17 profile of veteran Councilwoman Kathy Littlefield included fellow longtime Councilwoman Solange Whitehead\u2019s slam of the conservative-dominated 2025 City Council voting as \u201ca bloc\u201d \u2013 Whitehead\u2019s term for the voting powerhouse of Littlefield and fellow reps Barry Graham, Jan Dubauskas and Adam Kwasman.<\/p>\n
That was met with howls of protest from \u201cthe Bobs:\u201d Bob Littlefield, a former councilman who is Kathy\u2019s husband, and Bob Pejman, an Old Town gallery owner and conservative activist.<\/p>\n
Bob Littlefield fired off an angry email to this newspaper, demanding to know \u201cwhy do you persist in printing Solange\u2019s complaint that Kathy, Barry, Jan and Adam vote as a bloc without pointing out the hypocrisy of that complaint, given that when Solange was in the majority, she was a bigger bloc voter than Kathy, Barry, Jan and Adam have ever been.\u201d<\/p>\n
He included a graphic showing Whitehead voting with the other three liberal-leaning council members \u2013 then-Mayor David Ortega and representatives Tammy Caputi and Tom Durham \u2013 on various apartment projects and road diets.<\/p>\n
Ortega was toppled by Lisa Borowsky; Caputi and Durham also lost reelection bids last year.<\/p>\n
Ortega scoffed at the notion that he led a bloc.<\/p>\n
But, boasting of his leadership on the General Plan and other issues over four years, Ortega issued a Borowsky-era decree:<\/p>\n
\u201cThe current 5-2 council majority is regressive and unproductive.”<\/p>\n
Former Councilwoman Betty Janik, who did not run for reelection, was the wild card on the 2023-24 Council. Janik voted for smaller apartment developments and the massive Parque (the former CrakerJax) \u2013 but against Optima McDowell Mountain apartments and two road diets.<\/p>\n
Pejman quickly followed Bob Littlefield\u2019s complaint with a Facebook post: \u201cScottsdale Progress coined the term \u2018the bloc,\u2019 referring to Graham, Dubauskas, Kwasman, & Littlefield operating together.<\/p>\n
\u201cBut this is not a novel concept. Every council has had a majority that operated mostly in unison.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
Jim Bushlow enthusiastically seconded Pejman\u2019s take: \u201cThank God for the new block \u2013 there are still a few mountains viewable from the road that the old block didn\u2019t get the chance to block out with their developer buddies!\u201d<\/p>\n
Jason Grandon agreed with that: \u201cThe new bloc with the mayor is great. Way better.\u201d<\/p>\n
Gerry Friedel also gave Pejman\u2019s view the thumbs up:<\/p>\n
\u201cI like the new block and I think most residents do as well.\u201d<\/p>\n
Not for the first time, nor likely the last, Whitehead furiously refutes the view of the Bobs.<\/p>\n
\u201cI was not on a bloc \u2026 I didn’t yell at Betty across the dais and tell her how to vote based on who was voting on what,\u201d Whitehead said, a snarky allusion to Graham attempting to correct Kathy Littlefield\u2019s votes on two occasions.<\/p>\n
Caputi also said the Bobs are full of \u2026 propaganda.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe prior Council was not partisan and never aligned itself or harvested votes by political party,\u201d Caputi insisted.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe prior Council had very divergent views on most topics. We collaborated and found common ground, so that by the time votes occurred we had compromised and reached the best outcome for our diverse constituencies.\u201d<\/p>\n
Durham also said there was no \u201cbloc\u201d in the last two years: \u201cThere were several occasions when I voted differently from Councilmembers Caputi, Whitehead, Janik and the mayor,\u201d the former councilman said.<\/p>\n
Caputi called Graham \u201calways disruptive and abusive.\u201d<\/p>\n
And, as usual, Durham could not resist firing a shot at his old nemesis:<\/p>\n
\u201cAs we know from the open meeting law complaints filed against Councilmember Graham, the current majority often agrees on its votes in advance and in secret. I can\u2019t think of any significant votes where they have differed.\u201d<\/p>\n
Indeed, a review of the votes in an often-chaotic Scottsdale City Council 2025 shows the bloc was solid on such hot-button issues as rejecting Borowsky\u2019s plea for time to study a new location for an Old Town parking garage, repealing the city\u2019s DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) policies and a sustainability plan passed in 2024, as well as \u201ccanceling\u201d a planned roundabout at Scottsdale and Dynamite roads \u2013 even though it meant forfeiting some $32 million in state and federal funding.<\/p>\n
And, during the \u201cParkingate\u201d saga, Kwasman, Dubauskas and Graham held firm in statements to county detectives.<\/p>\n
\u00a0The three said they were concerned Borowsky broke campaign and procurement laws in private parking garage meetings, in which she pitched an alternate rendering created by David Hovey Jr., who contributed to her campaign.<\/p>\n
\u2018Super-majority\u2019?<\/strong><\/p>\n Kwasman did leave his fellow conservatives with a motion to bring back two of the mayor\u2019s staff weeks (after he and the other three voted to take them away) and in his support for Axon\u2019s reduced apartments plan.<\/p>\n In a locally-infamous text he sent to Borowsky\u2019s chief of staff, Kwasman threatened to make the mayor\u2019s life miserable if she didn\u2019t join him in Axon negotiations:<\/p>\n \u201cIf she (Borowsky) doesn\u2019t make a deal Solange is going to the Supermajority. She\u2019s going to be a 6-1 vote for four years.\u201d<\/p>\n Whitehead called Kwasman\u2019s threat a \u201cfantasy \u2026 I\u2019m not a horse trader.\u201d<\/p>\n Indeed, Whitehead has been at the other extreme from Kwasman and the conservatives on most votes.<\/p>\n Whitehead and Maryann McAllen have been at the losing end of many 5-2 votes; Borowsky has joined those two in several bloc-defying votes.<\/p>\n Rather than backtracking, Whitehead doubled down on her criticism of the new majority.<\/p>\n \u201cFour members routinely vote as a block on tremendously consequential issues \u2014 often without debate, community meetings, or meaningful public notice, even in the face of overwhelming resident opposition,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n \u201cThese actions create the appearance of coordination behind the scenes. Some have told me their votes were cast for colleagues rather than on the merits of the issue.\u201d<\/p>\n Last week, perhaps to gear up her like-minded supporters for the battle for the last half of 2025, Whitehead sent out a newsletter with hints of a conspiracy.<\/p>\n The title of her email blast:<\/p>\n \u201cHere We Go Again: We Must Protect Our Voter-Approved General Plan.\u201d<\/p>\n Whitehead insisted \u201cstaff time and tax dollars are once again being diverted from essential city operations to reverse voter-approved priorities. The latest target? General Plan 2035.\u201d<\/p>\n Without providing details, the councilwoman claimed, \u201cThese political games by a few on Council are wasting millions, silencing residents and further tarnishing Scottsdale\u2019s once-enviable brand.\u201d<\/p>\n She noted Scottsdale\u2019s current General Plan \u201cwas developed over a two-year period with extensive community input and voters decisively approved it in 2021.\u201d<\/p>\n Whitehead again called out \u201cthe bloc\u201d \u2013 though indirectly: \u201cHundreds of strikeouts and changes are now proposed \u2013 four Councilmembers should not be able to override the voters.\u201d<\/p>\n In what appeared to be a partial victory for Whitehead and other critics of the proposed changes, city staff scrambled and released a new version of the General Plan amendments \u2013 keeping in additions to match new state laws but getting rid of proposed city alterations (such as removing all references to \u201csustainability\u201d and \u201cdiversity\u201d).<\/p>\n Q&A<\/strong><\/p>\n Whitehead spent much of the first half of 2025 lecturing, scolding, pleading with and yelling over the words and actions of the conservative juggernaut.<\/p>\n While she has complained about the way some Progress stories have described her (\u201cred-faced in anger\u201d; \u201cWhitehead furiously howled\u201d), she acknowledged she has not always kept her cool in the face of what she calls a well-choreographed opposition.<\/p>\n \u201cThese \u2018coordinated\u2019 gotchas on trivial to consequential issues are bad for Scottsdale \u2013 but also caught me off-guard,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n \u201cI spoke passionately against breaking council norms and often against the majority position.\u201d<\/p>\n In a Q&A, she reflected on the first half of 2025, as well as challenges ahead and her personal plans.<\/p>\n \u00a0 Question<\/strong>: After nearly seven years, how do you feel about your job?<\/p>\n Answer<\/strong>: Serving as a Scottsdale Councilwoman is every bit as special today as it was when I was first elected in 2018. While the news often highlights divisive issues, most of my work is spent with residents solving neighborhood issues and also achieving incremental milestones on big issues like protecting the Preserve and safeguarding our city\u2019s finances.\u00a0<\/p>\n Q<\/strong>: What are your challenges with a new council majority?<\/p>\n A<\/strong>: Obviously, I\u2019ve had some strong disagreements with the Council majority this year. There have been contentious (4-3) votes that have reversed past Council projects and eliminated 30+ year programs.\u00a0<\/p>\n Currently, two voter-approved items are being targeted: the 2004 Preserve tax and the General Plan. These votes have already cost taxpayers millions but are also breaking the bond between City Hall and residents.\u00a0 In my opinion, this is dangerous.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Q<\/strong>: What is your biggest concern?<\/p>\n A<\/strong>: The dramatic shift in leadership has impacted staffing. This year alone, Scottsdale has lost well over 200 years of institutional knowledge. We have no water director, deputy water director, public works director, or transportation director \u2014 and we\u2019ve lost staff members at every level that were key to our \u201csimply better service\u201d outcomes.\u00a0<\/p>\n Q<\/strong>: With all the drama \u2013 will you run for reelection in 2026?<\/p>\n A<\/strong>: Strangers stop me in grocery stores to thank me for my work and encourage me to run for reelection. It\u2019s humbling \u2026<\/p>\n As former Public Works Director Dan Worth \u2014 forced into retirement \u2014 told me, \u201cScottsdale is worth fighting for!\u201d<\/p>\n I couldn\u2019t agree more, and I\u2019ll strongly consider running again in 2026.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"If Gertrude Stein covered Scottsdale politics, she might muse: A bloc is a bloc is a bloc. Scottsdale…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":176488,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5131],"tags":[5229,5643,1587,1589,7600,99066,67,586,132,5230,68,2969],"class_list":{"0":"post-176487","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-phoenix","8":"tag-america","9":"tag-arizona","10":"tag-az","11":"tag-phoenix","12":"tag-scottsdale","13":"tag-scottsdale-city-counci","14":"tag-united-states","15":"tag-united-states-of-america","16":"tag-unitedstates","17":"tag-unitedstatesofamerica","18":"tag-us","19":"tag-usa"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/115094012962906756","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/176487","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=176487"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/176487\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/176488"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=176487"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=176487"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=176487"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}