Behind Closed Doors- Sedona Council’s October 14 Executive Session Raises Eyebrows:

Opinion | Investigative By Thomas Marchetti

The Sedona City Council’s October 14 meeting agenda lists an executive session that has already drawn public attention for its vague but serious subject matter. According to the posted agenda, the council plans to meet privately “to discuss or consider the disciplining of a public officer,” citing Arizona Revised Statutes §38-431.03(A)(1) and (3). The same session will also include discussion of the employment or appointment of Richard Speer to fill the Presiding Magistrate Judge vacancy.

While personnel discussions are commonly held in closed session under Arizona’s open meeting laws, the inclusion of a disciplinary item involving a public officer is notable. The agenda provides no further explanation, leaving residents to wonder who is being reprimanded and what prompted the action. Under state law, councils may not take final action behind closed doors, but they may deliberate privately about sensitive personnel or legal matters. The absence of clear public information fuels speculation at a time when many citizens are already questioning transparency in city operations.

Public concern is heightened by the city’s recent pattern of internal disputes and leadership turnover. In recent months, Sedona officials have faced public criticism for handling of records requests, policy disputes, and high-profile resignations. The mention of discipline within an executive session agenda adds another layer to a growing sense of administrative tension. Community members are calling for the city to issue a clear statement once the meeting concludes, even if confidentiality limits the details that can be shared.

The second item, involving the appointment of Richard Speer as Presiding Magistrate Judge, could also intersect with the personnel discussion. The city’s magistrate court handles a wide range of cases, and the position carries significant administrative responsibility. Questions remain about whether the disciplinary matter pertains to court administration, staff conduct, or broader city management. Without official comment, the connection remains unclear.

Transparency advocates note that the Arizona Open Meeting Law allows executive sessions only under specific circumstances and requires that topics be precisely stated in the agenda. While Sedona’s notice meets the legal standard, critics say the city’s frequent reliance on executive sessions limits the community’s ability to stay informed. City officials have not released any comment or summary regarding the upcoming discussion.

Residents can review the posted agenda and monitor updates on the city’s official website. The open portion of the meeting is expected to follow the closed session, and any public actions resulting from the discussion must be taken on the record. Until then, citizens are left with more questions than answers about who faces discipline, why, and what this means for accountability at City Hall.

© Oak Creek Chronicle, LLC 2025