Scottsdale schools tried to silence critics
2 residents who raised concerns about district received lawsuit threats
Imagine exercising your constitutional right to criticize your government. Now imagine your government threatening to take you to court for it.
That’s just what happened in the Scottsdale Unified School District, where twice in the past year residents received official letters that threatened them with lawsuits after they raised concerns about district finances, bidding practices and potential conflicts of interest.
Superintendent Denise Birdwell hired an attorney to send a warning letter to one resident — and she had the district pay for it. A school-board-hired attorney sent the other.
The board is now questioning who should have paid an estimated $4,000 in legal bills Birdwell racked up in sending the letter to the resident, plus a letter to The Arizona Republic. The unusual legal response didn’t curb complaints from the group of Scottsdale residents questioning financial decisions and educators concerned about academic changes. They say district leaders’ reactions spurred them to dig deeper.
“We get pushback from the superintendent, we get pushback from the board, and that makes us want to find out more,” resident Dan Drake has said.
The questions persisted and their chorus of outrage grew loud enough by late 2017 to prompt a district probe and an Arizona Attorney General’s Office investigation centering on the district’s use of outside contractors.
Two top administrators, including Birdwell and Chief Operations Officer Louis Hartwell, are on leave pending the results of investigations. Laura Smith, the district’s former chief financial officer, has resigned.
So far, the AG’s Office has filed one civil lawsuit against the district, alleging procurement violations, and has confirmed a criminal investigation is underway. A district spokeswoman said Birdwell was unavailable to respond to questions while on leave.
However, as late as January, the superintendent referenced “politically
motivated individuals who like to shift the focus of the Scottsdale district away from accountability and learning.”
“And meanwhile we have a media that has been promoting stories that have very little merit,” Birdwell said at a Jan. 16 school-board meeting where the teachers union shared its vote of “no confidence” in Birdwell and the board.
School-board members did not respond to requests for comment. Board President Barbara Perleberg dismissed concerns about Birdwell’s two hires, Smith and Hartwell, last spring.
“I know our counsel has looked into it and has not expressed any concerns,” she said about Smith in June.
This month, Perleberg cited personnel matters as the reason for her current silence. “Our lack of commentary should not be taken as a lack of concern or action,” she said in a written statement Feb. 27. “The District remains committed to a fair, legal due process, reliant on facts.”
In June, Scottsdale resident Susan Hughes alerted school-board members Sandy Kravetz and Allyson Beckham to a potential conflict of interest involving Smith, and raised concerns that Birdwell might be involved.
Smith resigned in January as the district’s investigation found she steered district work to a consulting firm that she previously led and now is run by her sister.
Birdwell confirmed to The Republic last month that a board member forwarded Hughes’ email to her on June 22. The superintendent said her focus at the time was to have an attorney address an allegation Hughes made about her in the email.
“I simply printed the email and placed it in a file for the attorney,” Birdwell said, adding that she regretted not looking into the resident’s allegation about Smith.
Birdwell had Phoenix-based attorney Kraig Marton send a “cease and desist” letter to Hughes. The letter, obtained by
The Republic under Arizona public-records law, warned that the superintendent would sue Hughes if she continued to make an assertion about Birdwell’s ties to the consulting firm.
“Dr. Birdwell deserves better. … You may have a right to express your opinion about how SUSD is run or finances, but you have no right to personally and falsely attack Dr. Birdwell. Again, continued accusations against her like this will result in a lawsuit against you. It will not be pleasant,” Marton wrote.
“You have been warned,” the letter concludes.
Hughes called the letter an “intimidation tactic.”
“My communication with the board was to make them aware of these things,” she said. “I’m here for the kids. I was concerned with what I thought was obvious nepotism and unqualified people.”
Six months later, records show, an attorney representing the district sent a warning letter to residents Loyd and Denise Eskildson.
“We are writing on behalf of SUSD to demand that Loyd Eskildson immediately cease and desist from all future false, defamatory and tortious misstatements of fact regarding SUSD and its employees,” the letter from Mesabased attorney David Schwartz says.
Loyd Eskildson’s concerns, posted on Facebook and in submissions to another media outlet, largely centered on allegations of malfeasance in school construction spending and the district’s unresponsiveness to records requests.
The district’s letter to the Eskildsons says, ‘If you are dissatisfied with the response to Records Requests, the law provides a remedy in that you can file suit. What you cannot do is go around baselessly calling SUSD General Counsel or other employees or Board member a criminal.”
Eskildson said he was angered that he and his wife were “threatened with financial devastation.”
The Republic also received a warning letter from Marton in July, after publishing a story about leadership concerns mounting in the district.
The letter questioned The Republic’s citing of one of the residents’ complaints about Hartwell and its reporting on the superintendent’s ties to him. (His sister is Birdwell’s roommate and landlord.)
Hartwell, who is on paid leave from his district post as chief operations officer, has submitted his resignation.
The board is now looking into an estimated $4,000 the district paid for Birdwell’s legal representation in the matters involving Hughes and The Republic, according to Susan Segal, an outside attorney hired by the district to conduct its investigation.
The letter to the Eskildsons came at the board’s direction, while Birdwell pursued the others.
“Dr. Birdwell contends it’s covered under her contract. The district does not concede that,” Segal said.
In an email to Marton in June, obtained by The Republic in a records request, Birdwell wrote, “The Scottsdale Unified School District would like to retain your services in handling defamation concerns I have with a community member who is trying to interfere with my contract with the school district.”
In response, Marton asked if he would be representing the district or Birdwell.
“From your description, it would seem that you, personally need counsel, since you mentioned interference with your contract with the district. Regardless, I would be glad to help if I can,” Marton wrote in the June 22 email.
Birdwell responded that she’d like to have representation “at this time” against Hughes and Scottsdale resident Karen Treon, who Birdwell claimed was sharing “false information” with The Republic.
Treon recently told The Republic she never heard from the attorney. Still, she said, she finds the activity alarming.
“I find it very disturbing that Dr. Birdwell would use public funds to take this kind of action against constituents who are raising legitimate concerns about financial activities of the district,” Treon said. “I find it even more disturbing that the board would go along with it.”
Treon, an attorney and parent who co-chaired a committee supporting the district’s bond measure in 2016, began asking questions after seeing a lack of public input on school construction projects. She said she took her concerns to board members.
“They’ve just turned a blind eye; they’ve called us liars,” Treon said.
She was one of the residents who filed their concerns with the state Attorney General’s Office.
Scottsdale resident Mike Norton said district leaders were “bullying the messengers.” Norton said he met with two board members and Birdwell last summer and shared concerns about district finances and conflicts of interest. Birdwell told The Republic in February that the meeting was civil, but Norton characterized it differently.
“Instead of asking about the critical issues the evidence presented, they instead told me it was time that I shut up,” Norton said. He said Birdwell “told me the district had provided her funds to use to sue anyone who might interfere with her contract.”
Phoenix-based First Amendment attorney Dan Barr said residents should be careful, but “the First Amendment gives them broad latitude about what they say about the conduct of public officials.”
“Basically, you can comment on the actions of public officials and say whatever you want to say, as long as you don’t have knowledge that it is false at the time you’re saying it,” Barr said.