Critic taking actions against Gilbert mayor after clash at meeting 

By Tom Blodgett
Mail |
Twitter: @sp_blodgett

 A county island resident who has led a neighborhood fight against Gilbert using eminent domain on a portion of their land has taken two actions against Mayor Brigette Peterson from the Sept. 20 council meeting. 

Teresa Naddy filed a Code of Ethics complaint with the town of Gilbert and completed an intake questionnaire with the Civil Right Division of the Arizona Attorney General’s Office last week after the Gilbert Town Council meeting of Sept. 20. 

Naddy objected to Peterson having a sign taken from one person attending the meeting and later having three sign-waving attendees removed from the meeting. The signs, distributed outside the meeting, were printed and said, “Stop Lying.” 

“I feel that the Mayor instructing officers to remove these 3 people was going too far,” Naddy wrote in the questionnaire. “I also feel that this was retaliatory in nature as one of the people was Brandon Ryff, a gentleman who has called the Mayor out on several other of her indiscretions. The Mayor has a history of scolding the public audience as if they were her own children. I for one am tired of it.” 

The intake questionnaire is not a complaint but the first step in formalizing one.  According to the Attorney General's website,  the Civil Rights Division enforces state statutes that prohibit discrimination in employment, voting, public accommodations, disability and housing by investigating and litigating civil rights complaints. In addition, the Division provides conflict resolution services and mediation programs statewide.

On the ethics complaint, the Town Council may consider it on an agenda if the mayor or three council members ask for that. The matter can be referred for outside investigation. The complaint also can be dismissed administratively if the mayor or three council members do not act on it within 10 days.

Naddy has spoken and written multiple times to  council  regarding  plans to widen Ocotillo Road and complete it from Greenfield to Higley roads. Town plans on that major capital improvement project call for use of eminent domain  on parts of some county island residents' yards for the project.

Naddy noted that the town had in the past asked the audience to withhold applause so as not to disrupt the meeting, instead suggesting waving hands. 

Council's meeting

At the start of the "communications from citizens” period of the meeting Sept. 20, Vice Mayor Aimee Yentes, as is standard practice, read the rules of the public comment period and, in addition to asking for no applause, noted the appearance of the signs with people in the audience. 

Yentes told audience members they were free to wave them as much as they wanted outside the building but not to do so in the meeting. 

After the audience applauded the first speaker, Yentes stopped between speakers and reminded the audience of the rules, and Peterson asked that a sign be removed from one person. That stemmed the behavior for the next few speakers.  

A later speaker, Ryan Handelsman, challenged council on the rules before making his comments. 

“I don’t believe there is any statute or code that prevents meetings attendees from silently holding signs,” he said. “I see rules preventing disorderly conduct like clapping or threats, but I don’t see anything that would prevent silent displays of the sign, so that seems to be a First Amendment, free speech, and it seems like you guys are attempting to silence us and violate our personal rights.” 

Thereafter, some applause and sign waving resumed until Peterson stopped public comment before the final speaker, asked three sign-wavers at the back of the room be removed and threatened to end public comment. That sparked grumbling from the crowd. 

“We are going back to rules of decorum in this meeting,” Peterson answered. “We are trying to listen to everybody here this evening, and you’re not giving them the opportunity for us to hear from them.” 

Setting rules

However, Nancy Davidson, general counsel for the Arizona League of Cities and Towns, said council may be acting within its rights by establishing the rules it did.  

Davidson noted that she was not familiar with the specifics of what happened in Gilbert. However, she said residents have more free-speech protection outside the building and in free-speech areas like parks than in public meetings, which are considered “limited public forums.” 

That is because the purpose of the meetings is not free speech but to conduct town business, Davidson said. Therefore, courts have consistently allowed government bodies to establish "time, place, manor restrictions” about what will be allowed during the meeting. 

If cities find people are disrupting a meeting, they can have those people removed, Davidson said. 

“I don't know what happened in Gilbert, but I do know that that's not uncommon where people show up at a meeting, they start protesting or just yelling things out of the crowd or even just things as simple as just speaking out in the crowd,” Davidson said. “It doesn't have to be necessarily something egregious.” 

Tom Blodgett
Senior News Editor | Gilbert
@sp_blodgett

tblodgett@iniusa.org

Meet Tom
Tom Blodgett joined Independent Newsmedia, Inc., USA, in 2022, when the company acquired Community Impact Newspaper's Phoenix-area properties. Raised in Arizona, he has spent more than 35 years in journalism in the state.

Community: He has served as an instructional professional in the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication since 2005, and is editorial adviser to The State Press, the university's independent student media outlet. He also is director of operations for an 18U girls fastpitch softball team from Gilbert.

Education: Arizona State University with a BS in Journalism. 

Random Fact: He lived in Belgium during his freshman year of high school.  

Hobbies: Tweeting enthusiastically about ASU softball (season-ticket holder) and grumpily about other local sports (pessimistic fan).