Council debates memorial policy; members favor private funding and careful process for a potential Charlie Kirk memorial
Loading...
Summary
Council members discussed options for memorials on public land — funding, waiting periods, type and location — while debating a potential memorial for Charlie Kirk. Most members endorsed private funding and recommended developing formal guidelines or an ad hoc review process rather than immediate action.
Scottsdale City Council used a Dec. 1 work‑study session to examine the city’s memorial policy options and to discuss a referral about a possible memorial for Charlie Kirk.
Will Brooks, assistant to the city manager, presented four categories for council direction: who pays (private donations vs. public funds), whether to require a waiting period after death (staff said typical ranges run from 1 to 20 years, with 2–5 years most common), the type of memorial (small: bench, plaque, tree; large: monument, work of art) and location criteria for public lands. Brooks noted the city’s administrative regulation favors private funding for large memorials and that guidelines state a memorial "must not be divisive to the community." Examples in Civic Center include the Scottsdale Memorial For The Fallen and statues for former mayors.
Vice Mayor Adam Quasman asked whether past memorials that some call divisive (he cited Barry Goldwater’s memorial as an example) would have passed such a test; staff reminded the council that the administrative regulation governs staff but not council decisions. Councilmembers expressed varied views: some, including Councilwoman Littlefield and Councilwoman McCallan, said public funds should not be used and recommended private fundraising and a waiting period; others, including Vice Mayor Quasman and the mayor, said an ad hoc resident panel or a formal policy could be appropriate next steps and emphasized the civic value of public discourse.
City attorney staff explained that an appointed ad hoc committee would be a public body subject to open‑meeting law; staff suggested alternatives such as staff‑led working groups or a formal ordinance if the council wanted binding rules. The council did not adopt new rules at the meeting and signaled no consensus for immediate action; members asked staff to consider options for future agenda items, including a possible community advisory process.
