It is campaign season in #FountainHills and, true to form, ROT with the avid support of Councilmember Allen Skillicorn have made every effort to ensure that the slime continues to ooze down Avenue of the Fountains. This time, they are relying on Tony Pierce, the pastor of Cornerstone Family Church and an unabashed proponent of the tenets of Christian nationalism, to create another false narrative by claiming that Mayor Dickey violated Pierce’s constitutional rights by discussing her concerns about his hateful, dangerous rhetoric with Reverend David Felten.
This tempest in a teapot has now resulted in two ethics complaints being filed against Mayor Dickey and a cover story in the Fountain Hills Times.
This absurd contention that a public official can violate the First Amendment or the Establishment Clause through a private conversation about the incendiary rhetoric of a community leader has been circulating on social media for weeks. Local politicians, apparently ignorant of the scope and intent of the First Amendment, have piled on. Hannah Toth accused Mayor Dickey of acting “illegally.” Gerry Friedel and Art Tolis have expressed their stern disapproval.
📌Mayor Dickey Did Not Violate the First Amendment
It is both alarming and inexcusable that our current, past, and aspiring public officials have so little understanding of the First Amendment. For their edification this is what it says:
“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
At the time it was enacted the First Amendment applied only to the federal government; its provisions were made applicable to state and local governments by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Here there was no attempt to enact a “law” (ordinance) that would regulate Pierce’s First Amendment rights to speak freely or to practice his religion. The courts have recognized that in addition to enacting legislation, public officials can infringe a citizen’s First Amendment rights by taking or ordering an official action that would prohibit or deter a person from speaking freely or practicing their religion.
Mayor Dickey took no official action to prohibit or deter Pierce from speaking freely. Reverend Felten recalled that during this conversation Mayor Dickey asked if there was a hierarchy in Pierce’s church that could “reign him in.” Mayor Dickey has a different recollection of their conversation. Mayor Dickey recalls asking Reverend Felten if Pierce was affiliated with an organization that might object to his daily condemnations of the LGBTQIA+ community.
Both mayor Dickey and Reverand Felten recall that following the conversation there was no communication of any complaint or concern to anyone – the matter was dropped. But even if Mayor Dickey had taken it upon herself to communicate her concerns to the “hierarchy” there would have been no violation of Pierce’s First Amendment rights.
A religious organization is not an agency of the government. Even if the “hierarchy” had been contacted and decided to take some action designed to control Pierce his First Amendment rights would not have been violated. To resort to “legalese” – there was no “state action.” Where there is no state action there is no violation of the First Amendment.
To illustrate, consider the case of a newly elected town councilmember who responded to criticism by two residents by filing police reports against them, falsely accusing them of making “death threats” against him. In this case a compelling argument could be made that the First Amendment had been violated. A government official attempts to enlist the support of a government agency to deter the exercise of the citizens’ right to free speech.
How ironic and hypocritical that the people who are now casting aspersions on Mayor Dickey are the same people who sat silently by when Councilmember Skillicorn filed a police report falsely accusing two residents, who had been critical of his performance, of making death threats against him.
📌Why We Should All Be Concerned About Tony Pierce
As background, it is important to recall that these events took place in June: “Pride Month.” Tony Pierce, who has consistently demeaned and disparaged members of the LGBTQIA+ community, hates #PrideMonth.
Pierce has made it clear that he supports the belief that Christians are obligated to “transform” our country into a Christian state where all aspects of society are controlled by Biblical principles. He publicly portrays himself as a spiritual warrior engaged in a battle between good and evil.
Pierce has expressed his commitment to the purportedly “Biblical belief” that marriage can only be between one man and one woman.
Because he believes God punishes nations for sexual immorality, Pierce believes it is his obligation to condemn members of the LGBTQIA+ community.
Pierce is disgusted by the very idea of “Pride Month,” and Pierce’s attacks against the LGBTQAI+ community continued throughout June.
Pierce has repeatedly attacked Reverend Felten for his support of the LGBTQIA+ community and was outraged when the United Methodist Church recently voted to adopt policies that were similarly based on acceptance and inclusion.
Pierce’s response was the following post stating: “The United Methodist Church is now run by demons…that happened years ago here at the (sic) Fountains United Methodists (sic) Church here in Fountain Hills. Progressivism is demonic and poison, straight from the pit of hell.”
Every member of this community should be concerned when a religious leader targets an “at risk” and marginalized community. It is easy to understand why any concerned community member would reach out to Reverend Felten for advice.
Pierce claims that if Mayor Dickey had a concern with his incendiary rhetoric she was ethically obligated to bring her concerns to him. If Mayor Dickey had approached Pierce, how would he have responded? In all probability, his response would have been similar to the sentiment he expressed in this post, published shortly after he learned of her conversation with Reverend Felten:
It is important to recall that Ginny Dickey, like all citizens, has First Amendment rights. She has the right to engage in conversations about matters of concern to her as an individual and as our mayor. Her conversation with David Felten did not violate his First Amendment rights.
📌Allen Skillicorn Did Violate the First Amendment
Since he took office 18 months ago Allen Skillicorn has repeatedly attacked Mayor Dickey. Given this history, it is not surprising that Skillicorn has joined the ROT chorus and accused the mayor of attempting to intimidate and deter Pierce from exercising his First Amendment rights. Although not surprising, this particular attack is ironic to those who are aware of Skillicorn’s history.
On December 6, 2022, Skillicorn took his seat as a newly elected member of the Fountain Hills Town Council. Shortly thereafter, Skillicorn anointed himself as the leader of the self-described “conservative” faction of the Town Council with the intent to make a “splash” by exercising their majority power to effect “change.” The strategy employed by the majority was viewed by many as unwarranted and ill-conceived.
During this period a resident published two letters to the editor of the Fountain Hills Times that were critical of Skillicorn and the other “conservative” members of the Fountain Hills Town Council.
In the first letter the resident observed: “It seems that our new council persons have a collective trigger finger.” The letter went on to describe the uninformed and disordered approach taken by the majority as: “Ready. Fire. Aim.” In the same letter, commenting on Skillicorn’s support of legislation that would result in the Town’s loss of millions in tax revenue, the resident suggested: “Let’s not lose more time and money due to his scattershot approach.”
In a subsequent letter, dated March 8, 2023, the resident commented on four Councilmembers’ refusal to consider the report of a committee tasked by the Town to evaluate the condition of the community’s streets as follows: “I can’t understand why our ‘ready, fire, aim’ council persons are disregarding the work of dedicated citizens.”
Weeks after the first letter was published in the Fountain Hills Times, Skillicorn filed reports with the Arizona Attorney General and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department (MCSO) claiming that in making these statements the resident had threatened him with violence or death. During the same period Skillicorn filed a police report against another resident based on a social media post suggesting that he could “go to Hell.”
Within days of receiving the complaints, the MCSO completed its investigation and determined that no threats had been made and no crime had been committed. But Skillicorn was not done with his effort to intimidate and deter.
In April, two months after the first letter to the editor was published, Skillicorn issued a press release captioned: “Fountain Hills City Councilman Allen Skillicorn calls for civility in light of death threats against him.” The press release states that the author of the letters to the editor had used “gun and threatening language” against him. The press release was submitted to various media outlets including the Fountain Hills Times.
Subsequently, one of the media outlets Skillicorn contacted published an article captioned: “Skillicorn says death threats have no place in the public square.” In that article the two residents were accused of making “not so subtle death threats.”
Skillicorn’s sole motivation in conducting this campaign of harassment was to intimidate and deter his critics. By filing reports with the MCSO, Skillicorn attempted to invoke the power of the state to silence them. Yet, no one objected.
📌How Does This End?
The recently filed ethics complaints are without merit and will fail. ROT and its supporters can be expected to continue and escalate their slime campaign.
This particular effort to embarrass and denigrate the mayor will end when the majority makes it clear to ROT and Skillicorn that we can distinguish a good faith effort to protect a targeted minority from harassment and a bad faith effort to silence the opposition.