Attachment A - Jeremy Thacker March 2, 2022 Citizen Petition

Attachment A

CITIZEN: PETION 1os
PHOENIX Clty COUNCIL

Date: March 2, 2022

Pursuant to Chapter IV, Section 22 of the Phoenix City Charter, I, Jeremy Thacker, a citizen and resident
of the City of Phoenix, hereby petition the City Council to consider and enact within (15) days a
resolution, ordinance, or measure to clarify how citizen petitions are handled and to determine whether
the current process for handling citizen petitions violates the City Charter and Code.

CITY CHARTER CHAPTER IV, SECTION 22

How petitions are to be submitted and acted upon

Any citizen of this City may appear before the Council at any regular meeting and present
a written petition; such petition shall be acted upon by the Council in the regular course

of business, within fifteen (15) days.

CITY CODE CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 2, DIVISION 2, SECTION 2-60, RULE 3

Order of business for formal meetings

h. Action on citizen petitions previously submitted, if applicable;

BACKGROUND

At two separate City Council Formal Meetings, January 26, 2022, and February 15, 2022, | submitted two
separate citizen petitions and made public comment on each. The City’s handling of both petitions are in
violation of both City Charter and Code by the most liberal interpretation of each.

The first petition submitted was determined to be “disqualified” according to an email | received from
the city including Deputy City Manager, Inger Erickson, and City Attorney, David Benton. After much
debate, the petition has never been added to the agenda for the City Council, a subcommittee, a board, ora

discussion with Parks’ staff.

page 1 of 4

Petition to the City of Phoenix (City Council) 1.24.22

The second petition “qualified” as a citizen petition but was scheduled to be heard by a subcommittee,

not a quorum of the full City Council, on April 20, 2022, 64 days from the date of submission.

Petition 1
The first petition submitted on January 26, 2022 made the following request of the City Council:

..immediately halt operations of the City’s six municipal golf courses and to sell or
repurpose the land occupied by the City-owned courses with the proceeds used to

support underserved sports and citizens.

The City’s reason for disqualification was stated as follows:

Your Citizen Petition does not request an action within the jurisdiction of the City Council,
and therefore does not qualify as a Citizen petition and cannot be placed on a council
agenda... As such, the requests in your petition are in the authority of the Parks Board,

and cannot be addressed by the City Council.

The City’s reasoning is wrong for many reasons that | won't detail here, but it is particularly noteworthy
to call out that the Parks Board doesn’t even have the authority to change the rates charged for Golf
fees by a single penny, much less the authority to shut down operations (effectively changing rates to
$0), sell the property and equipment, investigate the accusations included, and repurpose the land,
proceeds, and assets accordingly. All actions requested in the petition will require City Council’s
approval.

Assuming the City was correct (they weren’t) in determining the City Council lacked jurisdiction, most of
the citizen petitions that have been added to the agenda, discussed, and acted upon by the City Council
have specifically requested actions outside of the jurisdiction of the City Council. For that matter, many
have been illegal at the State and National level, violated the Constitution of the United States, or not
even made a request for any action. Yet, over the last 15 years, every petition submitted to the Council
have been added to an agenda of the full City Council, discussed by the Council and petitioner, and
action taken by the Council, even if the action taken was simply “being heard.”

Additionally, my denied petition had nearly identical attributes to another petition that was submitted
less than four years prior, which did qualify as an agenda item where City Council discussed the Staff
Report presented by Parks—which was then directed by Inger Erickson, the same Inger Erickson now
claiming a lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Benton offered no explanation for the disparate treatment except
“that’s not how we do it now.” When | asked him via a public records request to provide evidence
supporting his claim that petitions are handled differently—for all disqualified citizen petitions over the
last two years—I have yet to receive any such evidence after 18 days have passed.

page 2 of 4

Petition to the City of Phoenix (City Council) 1.24.22

When | asked about the process for Parks Board accepting citizen petitions, | was told that no process
exists, and they were not required to act on petitions submitted by citizens. When | pointed out the
giant loophole this created to avoid accountability, | got no response from the City.

The Charter does not mention “jurisdiction” or “disqualification.” Precedent set by the entire history of
the City’s handling of citizen petitions contradicts the City’s handling of my petition. Assuming the City is
correct about jurisdiction, they have exposed an even bigger issue: The giant loophole created by the
Council delegating responsibility of petitions to a group that takes no responsibility for petitions.

Petition 2

Some may conclude that having my second petition added to a subcommittee agenda 60+ days from
submission is an acceptable outcome. In fact, Mr. Benton tried to justify it as such in an email.

The action being taken is, once a petition is deemed qualified, the petition is referred to
the TIP subcommittee. A staff file is prepared, and the citizen who prepared the petition
is heard at TIP. The objective there is to take the time to get a better understanding of
the petition. From there, further action can be taken, if needed. Sometimes the matter
can be handled at the subcommittee level, while some matters (or parts thereof) may
need to be referred to other departments or subcommittees, or may be referred to

council.

While several issues exist with this response, the least obvious may be when Mr. Benton says, “the
objective.” To whose objective is he referring? Certainly not my objective. Nor do | believe it is the
objective of any citizen that has gone through the process of researching, authoring, and submitting a
citizen petition to the City Council. In fact, | am willing to assume that the original authors of the Charter
meant for the citizen petition to avoid the “objectives” of subjective employees, bureaucratic processes,
and long delays by giving citizens direct access to the City Council. Additionally, it was clearly intended to
hold the Council accountable by requiring each member to vote on the petition, removing the ability to
simply avoid issuing an opinion on a matter.

The more obvious issue with Mr. Benton’s response is that it violates the laws included in the Charter
and Code. The Charter states that Council must act in 15 days. Nowhere does it state, “or if it’s more
convenient for Council and staff that the City Manager can delegate the issue to his subordinate who
then asks the City Attorney to determine if it’s qualified before deciding if they may or may not send it
to a subcommittee or Board containing no City Councilmembers and no ability to act within 90 days,
give or take 90 days.” The language is clear, which is why Mr. Benton’s response is so puzzling.

Equally as puzzling is the charge of the Transportation, Infrastructure, and Subcommittee (TIC), which
includes handling of citizen petitions. The TIC only meets once per month. So much for 15 days! The TIC
includes only four City Council members—short of a quorum of the City Council required to act ona
petition. Because the Mayor is solely responsible for the charge and members of the subcommittees,
either the rules for how citizens petitions are handled according to the Charter and Code have been

page 3 of 4

Petition to the City of Phoenix (City Council) 1.24.22

changed illegally, or staff has been ordered to follow a process in direct violation of the Charter and
Code.
The requirements are simple:

1. Acted on by the Council — Violation

Subcommittees, Boards, and Commissions are not the City Council. They do not have the same

authority, influence, or members.
2. Within fifteen (15) days — Violation

Any number of days over 15 is a violation. Simple

If the City reasons that the Council is acting by allowing the item to be delegated to a subcommittee,
they have several obstacles to overcome. First, an ordinance stating that citizen petitions are to be
handled by TIP subcommittee instead of by the full City Council would need to be approved and
changed in the City Code. No ordinance exists. The Charter would need to be modified with changes to
who can handle the petitions and days allowed. This would require citizen approval via ballot initiative.
The citizens have never voted on any such change to the Charter.

Without notifying the citizens, much less getting their approval via ballot initiative, the City has
significantly weakened the citizen’s last line of defense by making unauthorized, unpublished, and
unwanted changes to the citizen petition in violation of the Charter and Code.

PETITIONERS REQUESTED ACTIONS

e Clarify the City’s current process for handling citizen petitions

e Clarify the specific requirements to qualify as a citizen petition
Specifically, address these items:

1. Cana petition be disqualified any of the following?
a. Lack of jurisdiction
b. Request illegal or unconstitutional action
c. Existing process for the request exists
2. Does a decision by staff or Mayor to assign petitions to subcommittee, board, or body without City
Council’s approval violate the Charter? Code?
3. Does a decision by staff or Mayor without a vote from Council to assign a petition to a body other
than the full City Council qualify as an action by Council within 15 days?
If violations have occurred, what remedy is available to those who damaged by the violations?

If violations have occurred, what are the consequences for those responsible for the violations?

page 4 of 4