Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fountain Hills council votes to remove public-comment slot and council reports after legal notice
Summary
After hours of public testimony and council debate, Fountain Hills adopted a rule change to suspend general "call to the public" and the regular mayor/council reports, citing legal risk from a notice of claim alleging improper religious speech; supporters say it reduces abuse, opponents call it censorship.
The Fountain Hills Town Council voted 5-2 on Nov. 18, 2025, to amend its rules of procedure to remove the regular "call to the public" portion of meetings and council members' reports, a measure the town attorney presented as a temporary response to a notice of claim alleging establishment-clause violations.
Town Attorney (unnamed in the record) told the council the claim, filed Nov. 4, asked the town to adopt safeguards after residents and some council members used religious language during meetings; she recommended removing those two agenda items or suspending them for six months to avoid potential liability and further abusive complaints. "The Culp complaint seeks to demand the town engage in constitutionally prohibited viewpoint content discrimination," the attorney said, and the proposed change was framed as limiting the town's exposure to civil-rights complaints.
The item provoked lengthy public comment and a polarized council debate. "Voting against this measure would show this town and its people that you value transparency," said Susan DeGenaro, a Fountain Hills resident and leadership academy graduate. Teen speaker Jonathan David Fillipi argued the action would teach younger residents that "democracy is conditional." In contrast, resident Wendy Corey described recent public comment as "radical political activist theater" and voiced support for the council's action to preserve orderly meetings.
Council members split along pragmatic and procedural lines in explaining their votes. Council member McMahon said the change was unnecessary and warned it could increase complaints, while Council member Watts, who voted to adopt the change, said the council needs a short-term workaround and promised a follow-up work session to revisit the rules. Council members who supported the action emphasized a need to curb repeated, disruptive uses of public comment. "If you want to restrict what is allowed to be said... it is best to remove that," one council member said during debate, arguing the council itself is not required to include those agenda items.
The motion to adopt the revised rules passed on a roll call vote of 5 to 2. Several council members who voted yes said they expect to hold a work session to draft a more targeted set of procedural rules that could restore public participation under clearer constraints.
The council's decision was met with immediate reaction from residents: multiple speakers urged the council to reconsider, calling the move an overreach that could dampen civic participation; other residents supported the measure as necessary to prevent repeated, disruptive interventions. The town manager and staff said they would prepare materials for the promised work session.
What happens next: Council members who supported the change said they will convene a work session to refine rules and consider alternatives. Opponents and several public speakers said they are likely to seek further review through public advocacy and legal channels.
