Lawmakers, residents allege conflicts and governance problems at Tolleson Union High School District; police and city officials respond on SRO incident

Lawmakers, former district leaders and members of several community groups told the Joint Legislative Audit Committee they are deeply concerned about governance, transparency and potential conflicts of interest at Tolleson Union High School District.

Public speakers and legislators described actions they said limited public participation — including moving meetings and, they said, a new board policy that would require constituency members to obtain prior approval from the board president before approaching the dais. Community groups told the committee they had been denied records requested under public‑records law; one resident said she was handed a district letter banning her from district properties after public testimony.

Several witnesses and legislators pressed Superintendent Jeremy Kais over consulting work he has performed outside the district. Kais acknowledged he operates or is affiliated with consulting companies that have provided services to other Arizona school districts, and he said he is on cooperative purchasing platforms and relies on subconsultants. He told JLAC he had worked with Isaac’s superintendent as a consultant before the receiver was appointed, and he said he did not bill Isaac and that any purchase orders that had been opened were closed. Several members of the Tolleson central office staff — the chief financial officer and procurement director — were identified in testimony as having provided some consulting work in the past for Kais’ consulting enterprises; Kais said those staff work full time for Tolleson and that any outside consulting hours are separate and occasional.

Multiple legislators and community speakers raised concerns about whether the district had disclosed conflicts of interest and whether the board had adequate oversight. Representative Gress said the combination of large cash reserves and transactions with other districts merited close review; Representative Carbone asked whether the consulting and in‑office work created unacceptable conflicts. Kais said all conflict‑of‑interest filings were on file for his companies and that the district board had evaluated his performance and not raised interference concerns.

The committee also heard competing accounts about a security incident involving a Tolleson police officer, Officer Hendricks. Tolleson Police Chief Rudy Mendoza said Officer Hendricks and other officers responded to an incident in which a student alleged stalking and a firearm was discovered; Chief Mendoza said his department judged Hendricks’ use of force to be appropriate under the circumstances, citing an aggravated assault on an officer and that the officer’s actions were supported by campus personnel at the time. Superintendent Kais and school witnesses described the episode differently; Kais said video would show the officer punching a student and said that, based on that video, the district could not rely on that officer going forward. Chief Mendoza said he considered the campus safer with experienced city officers who know the families and students but said the department was open to SSO (school‑safety officer) arrangements. City Manager Reyes Medrano told the committee the city had expected cooperation from the district and recounted a separate, contentious negotiation over city property that the district asked the city to transfer; he said he had refused an instruction to the city manager to pay an $85,000 broker fee that the district had tried to pass to the city for the city to pay privately.

Several community groups asked JLAC to consider a forensic audit of the district. Former superintendents and educators at the hearing also said the district lacked a board‑adopted curriculum and questioned academic outcomes, particularly math proficiency rates.

Ending — Committee members indicated they would review materials provided at the hearing and that JLAC staff would consider whether a formal audit or a referral for further investigation is warranted. Kais and the district were asked to deliver additional documentation on contracts, conflict‑of‑interest filings, consulting invoices and records of public‑records requests; municipal officials agreed to provide the committee the title report and relevant communications about the city‑district property transaction. JLAC did not vote on an audit at the hearing but several members signaled they will pursue follow‑up and possible audit requests.