Fountain Hills Council Eliminates Public Comment From Meetings, Citing Legal Risk

In a Nov. 18 vote likely to reverberate across civic halls across Arizona, the Fountain Hills Town Council voted 5–2 to eliminate the “Call to the Public” portion of its meetings, the segment where residents can speak on non-agenda issues.

The decision came after a resident issued a formal complaint, alleging that council members and a private citizen used a recent meeting to promote Christian beliefs, in violation of constitutional church-state rules.

The complaint referenced a September meeting in which the mayor allegedly allowed a Christian eulogy, scripture readings, and religious messaging.

During the meeting, the town’s attorney urged the council to either suspend or remove both public comment and councilmembers’ informal reports, warning that retaining them exposed the town to possible civil-rights litigation.

Supporters of the change said repeated public comment sessions had been “abused” by a small group, undermining orderly governance.

Opponents voiced serious concern. Councilwoman Brenda Kalivianakis, one of the two dissenting votes, warned that ending public comment would appear to many residents as a “trampling” of their right to be heard.

Residents, some speaking passionately at the meeting and in local forums, argued the move locks out civic engagement and undermines democratic accountability.

Supporters of the decision, including Councilmember Hannah Larrabee, described the public-comment period as a “toy” repeatedly misused to air grievances and religious or political commentary rather than address municipal concerns.

In its official statement, the council indicated this change is meant to be temporary, a pause while a “work group” studies how to revise the rules to allow public input under clearer constraints. But many residents and free-speech advocates fear the “temporary” silence may become permanent.

This decision marks a stark turning point for civic engagement in Fountain Hills, Arizona. Public comment portions of meetings have long served as a direct link between citizens and their local government. With them gone, residents may find their ability to influence town policy limited to elections, not real-time discourse. For a small town that prides itself on local participation and community identity, erasing that link raises deep questions about whose voices truly matter.