Photo Credit: scottsdale.gov
The Scottsdale Unified School District recently considered rather draconian moves in response to public input and discourse: to limit public comment, as well as to restrict it to people who have a vested interest in the district.
While the board took no action, it does highlight a growing issue at SUSD meetings, as political activists from around the state as well as fringe political candidates are using SUSD as a stumping opportunity, as well as an opportunity to be needlessly disruptive. Between anti-mask as well as anti-CRT activists have used public comments as an opportunity to distract from the actual business of the district.
There is not much doubt that this was on the mind of Jann-Michael Greenburg (along with all of the criticism he has received regarding his self-inflicted troubles) as he spoke in favor of it. However, most board members seemed to be rather reluctant, citing concerns about free speech and the necessity of public discourse. State Representative John Kavanagh also chimed in, very much in opposition.
While public discourse is important, we have to wonder where its limitations lie. When someone does not even live in the district nor has any strong ties, what is the point of their airing of grievances? Why should someone with no “skin in the game” be given as equal a voice as someone who is actually impacted by proposed legislation? Perhaps we shouldn’t allow the loudest voices with the least to gain or lose to be on equal footing with actual stakeholders.
While we are firm proponents of free speech and public participation, anything good has its limitations and limits. It’s unfortunate that adults couldn’t act like adults, and as such warranted potential action. We hope that SUSD can find ways to improve legitimate discourse and minimize useless noise without resorting to draconian tactics. While this would be far from ideal, something does need to change.