A mother was physically removed from an Arizona state council meeting in front of her 10-year-old child after she raised concerns about a city official’s contract on Tuesday, Aug. 20.
In footage from the Surprise City meeting, Rebekah Massie can be heard accusing a city employee of professional misconduct. Surprise Mayor Skip Hall says that by agreeing to speak at the meeting, Massie agreed not to directly attack individual city employees.
“Verbal communications made during a city council meeting cannot be used to make accusations or complaints about a city employee or board member, even if the person is mentioned by name or other reference intended to identify him or her in the presentation,” Hall told Massie.
“That’s all well and good and nice, but this is a violation of my First Amendment rights,” Massie is heard saying.
Hall asks for Massie to be removed. Massie responds by asking if it is necessary to remove her because her 10-year-old daughter is there.
An officer then tried to remove Massie, who resisted and was later arrested. According to case records, he was issued a citation for third-degree trespassing. Source: City of Surprise via Storyful
Video text
Well, then I’ll make use of this time.
I know you need to switch to e-sessions.
So, out of respect for that, the issue that I had previously requested to be discussed was on the approval agenda, item six, which was about the employment contract for the city attorney.
Well, I’ll start this with the contract agreement with Mr. Robert Wingo.
There is a condition stating that he can renegotiate the pay rate for an outstanding job.
At Cambridge University, exceptional is defined as something that is far above the norm, especially in terms of skill, intelligence, quality etc., i.e. something that is not expected of someone in a role, and I am particularly concerned about allocating further funding to someone like that for a number of different reasons.
The first point is based on an article by Jason Stone published in the Surprise Independent about 12 months ago.
The city attorney is the second highest paid of the city’s surprise employees.
And at the time, his annual earnings were listed as about $266,000, which is significant because he ranks 11th overall in the entire state and actually only makes about $10,000, less than the attorney in Scottsdale when the article was printed, and Scottsdale has a population of about 100,000 people, more than the surprise covers.
Numerous violations or allegations of violations have emerged in recent months.
And I can say, in clear disregard, that I will defend not only Arizona’s revised statute, the state bar’s code of professional conduct, but also the Arizona State Constitution and the Bill of Rights at the federal level.
Hmm, Title 16, I won’t repeat everything, but we all know very well what happened during the election period and the violations of these.
The municipal clerk is our election officer.
Nothing was done about the violations and the city attorney did nothing about the conflict of interest information in titles nine and 38 and there was an admission of a conflict of interest in title 39.
I have numerous public records requests currently open and awaiting legal review, and I have the right to access them.
I have to interrupt you here because, okay, are you going to set a timer?
This is the public meeting forum you agreed to when you made your speech, and I want to read to you that oral communications made during the city council meeting cannot be used to make accusations or complaints about any city employee or agency member, regardless of whether that person is mentioned by name or any other identifying reference in the presentation.
They are all beautiful.
That’s all well and good, but that’s a violation of my first amendment, right?
So this is, this is your warning.
Okay, how is that a warning to personally attack the city attorney?
All of this is real information.
It’s not important.
You are violating my first amendment.
This is what you agree to.
When you first talk about it, it’s unconstitutional.
Mayor’s Hall.
It is not against the constitution.
It is.
And if there’s a Supreme Court, I can come in here and curse you for three minutes, and that’s speech protected by the Supreme Court.
It is.
Why don’t you look at the case laws?
No, you can’t.
I can do it.
So if you want to be terrorized out of here, are you going to be terrorized out of here for violating my first amendment rights?
You are violating my first amendment rights.
That’s your opinion.
This is not a matter of opinion.
Do you want to be taken out?
Mr. Massey?
Because that’s what will happen and will happen in the future.
Also, every time you attack him, that’s why you change the rules or that’s why you change the rules.
This was located on the back of this form.
I understand Mayor Hall, but this is completely unconstitutional.
No, you are also getting into an argument and you should actually let someone else do the talking.
Executive chef.
Can someone come and accompany MS Massie?
Is this necessary in front of my 10 year old daughter?
You will take me out, since I gave my statement, he can come with you.
I’m not going.
Well, no, I mean, don’t touch me.
Don’t touch me.
Don’t touch me.
Don’t touch me.
Why am I being detained?
Under what?
Ok.
So yeah, so it can go out.
Ok.
Well, I will consider a motion to go to ESS, I will consider a motion to go to E session, and then I will move to support it.
All those who accept.
Hello, say hello.
We’re probably moving on to session E.