Cochise County Flood Control District approves consent items; residents raise concerns about water meeting access and timing of payments

The Cochise County Flood Control District Board voted 3-0 to approve consent agenda items 1 and 2 at a meeting Tuesday in the Board of Supervisors Hearing Room in Bisbee.

The action came after two members of the public spoke during the meeting's call to the public. Lisonbee Morris, who identified herself as a Portal resident, said she drove four hours round-trip to attend a presentation on Arizona water given by state Representative Gail Griffin but was asked to leave by Robert Montgomery after introducing herself. Morris said at least two registered Republicans were turned away and that at least two people who were not precinct committeemen were allowed to remain.

"Water availability and practical management is of critical importance to all of us regardless of party affiliation," Morris said. She criticized the invitation-only nature of the event and said Representative Griffin "was there to preach to the choir and saturate the minds of her handpicked audience with a flood of misinformation to sway the minds of her GOP base." Morris said she attended to learn and to ask questions.

A second caller, Tricia Jerodette, asked the board about the timing of checks listed on the board's demands for approval, saying the physical paperwork showed dates from the previous week and asking whether the checks are written on those dates but held until board approval.

A county finance staff member answered during the meeting that checks are held in finance until after the meeting and are approved and then sent. The board did not provide a named response to Jerodette's question beyond that point of information.

After public comment the board moved to the consent agenda. A motion to approve consent agenda items 1 and 2 was made and seconded; all three supervisors present voted in favor and the motion passed 3-0. The board then adjourned the Flood Control District meeting and proceeded to the jail district item on the agenda.

Why it matters: Public commenters raised access and transparency concerns — one about who is permitted at a public presentation on water and another about the county's payment process — while the board completed routine business by approving two consent items. The finance staff explanation addresses the immediate procedural concern about distribution of checks but did not include additional detail on check issuance or controls beyond that they are held until after approval.

What was not specified: The meeting record did not identify who moved or seconded the consent motion by name, did not supply the check numbers or amounts Jerodette referenced, and did not identify the exact role of Robert Montgomery. The board did not take further action in response to Morris's claims beyond hearing the public comment.