Mom Hauled Out of Arizona Council Meeting After Raising Concerns Over Official

A mother was physically removed from an Arizona government council meeting in front of her 10-year-old child after raising concerns about a city official’s contract on Tuesday, August 20.

In footage from the City of Surprise meeting, Rebekah Massie is heard accusing a city employee of professional misconduct. Surprise Mayor Skip Hall responds that by agreeing to speak at the meeting, Massie consented not to attack individual city employees directly.

“Oral communications during the city council meeting may not be used to lodge charges or complaints against any employee of the city or members of the body, regardless of whether such person is identified in the presentation by the name or by any other reference that intends to identify him or her,” Hall tells Massie.

“That’s all fine, well and good, but that’s a violation of my First Amendment rights,” Massie is heard saying.

Hall asks for Massie to be removed. Massie responds by asking if her removal was necessary given her 10-year-old daughter was present.

An officer then tries to remove Massie, who resists, and is then subsequently placed under arrest. According to case records, she was given a citation for third degree trespassing. Credit: City of Surprise via Storyful

Video transcript

Um So I'm gonna take this time.

Um I know you guys need to go into to e session.

So, out of respect for that, um the item that I had requested to speak on earlier was during the consent agenda item number six as it pertains to the contract of employment for the city attorney.

Um So I'm going to start this off with in the contractual agreement with Mr Robert Wingo.

There is a stipulation that state that says he can renegotiate his pay rate for an exceptional job.

Um Cambridge University defines exceptional as something that is much greater than usual, especially in skill, intelligence, quality, et cetera, ie what is not expected of somebody in a role and I have concerns with allocating more funds to him specifically for a few different reasons.

Point number one is according to an article that was published in the surprise independent just shy of 12 months ago by Jason Stone.

Um the city attorney is the second highest paid individual in the entirety of the city of surprise employees.

And at that time, he was listed at making about $266,000 annually where this becomes important is he is 11th overall in the entire state and he actually only makes only $10,000 again at the time of the article was printed less than the attorney in Scottsdale and Scottsdale has about 100,000 people larger than what surprise covers.

Um, recent months have uncovered numerous violations or alleged violations.

And in blatant disregard, I would say for not only the Arizona revised statutes, the state bar rules of professional conduct, but also the Arizona State Constitution and the Bill of Rights at the federal level.

Um Title 16, I won't rehash everything but we are all too well and familiar with what took place during the election season and the violations thereof.

City clerk is our elections officer.

Nothing was done with the violations and the city attorney did nothing as far as that title nine and 38 conflict of interest pieces of information and it was deemed that there was a conflict of interest title 39.

There are numerous public records requests that I have open right now that are quote pending legal review that I am entitled to requests.

I've got to interrupt you here because, ok, are you going to establish a timer?

This is the public meeting forum that you agree to when you speak and I want to read this to you that a there are oral communications during the city council meeting may not be used to lodge charges or complaints against any employee of the city or members of the body, regardless of whether such person is identified in the presentation by the name or by any other reference that tends to identify him or her.

That's all fine.

Well, and good, but that's a violation of my first amendment, right?

So that's, well, this is your warning.

Ok, warning for what a warning for attacking the city attorney personally.

This is all factual information.

It doesn't matter.

You're violating my first amendment.

This is what you agree to.

When you first speaking, this is the form it is unconstitutional.

Mayor Hall.

Well, it's not unconstitutional.

It is.

And if the Supreme Court is, I did get up here and I could swear at you for three straight minutes and it is protected speech by the Supreme Court.

It is.

You, why don't you look at case law?

No, you can't.

I can.

So if you want to be the terror of the escorted out of here, do you want to be escorted out of violating my first amendment rights?

You are violating my first amendment rights.

That's your opinion.

It's not a matter of opinion.

Do you want to be escorted out?

MS Massey?

Because that's what's going to happen and it's going to happen in the future.

Also, any time you attack it, that's why you change the rules or that's why you change the rules.

This has been on the back of this form.

I understand Mayor Hall, but that is completely unconstitutional.

No, you're also engaging in debate and so you should actually be yielding the floor to somebody else.

Managing chief.

Could you have somebody come down here and escort MS Massie?

Is that necessary in front of my 10 year old daughter?

You're gonna escort me out for expressing my, she can go with you.

I'm not leaving.

Um I'm no, I'm expressing my, do not touch me.

Do not put your hands on me.

Do not put your hands on me.

Do not put your hands on me.

Why am I being detained?

Under what?

Ok.

So I'll, yeah, I mean she can go out there.

Ok.

Uh I'll, I'll entertain a motion to go into ESS motion to go into E session then move to second it.

All those in favor.

Say hi, hi.

We're going into E session probably.