Beth Culp
15429 East Richwood Avenue
Fountain Hills, AZ 85268
Subject: Ethics Violations Committed by Mayor Gerry Friedel
Mayor Gerry Friedel has violated the Code of Ethics found in the Town of Fountain Hills Rules of Procedure by making misleading and false statements in an effort to take undeserved credit for the 6% reduction in the amount Fountain Hills residents will pay for police services in FY 2026. The misleading and false statements include the following, made by Friedel in a letter to the editor of the Fountain Hills Times, published on February 21, 2025: “My meetings with Sheriff Jerry Sheridan resulted in year-over year savings of 6% or approximately $370,000.”
This statement was a complete fabrication, made with the intent to affirmatively mislead the residents of Fountain Hills.
As set out in greater detail below, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (“MCSO”) provides police services to Fountain Hills, pursuant to an Intergovernmental Agencies’ Service Agreement (“the Agreement”). Throughout his mayoral campaign Friedel criticized his opponent, former mayor Ginny Dickey, for negotiating an agreement that was unfavorable to Fountain Hills. Friedel claimed that the Town had been overcharged for the police services provided under the Agreement and, as a result, MCSO owed the Town hundreds of thousands of dollars. During the campaign Friedel also announced his intent to renegotiate the terms of the contract if he was elected.
In campaign advertisements Friedel pledged that, if elected, he would meet with the new MCSO Sheriff within the first 100 days of his administration, presumably as a first step in recovering the alleged overpayments and renegotiating the Agreement.
On February 5, 2025, Jim Prindiville, the MCSO’s Chief Financial Officer, advised the Fountain Hills Town Manager that primarily due to a decision made by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors in 2023, to pay down unfunded pension benefits for sworn officers, Fountain Hills would be charged approximately 6% less for law enforcement services during the upcoming fiscal year.
One day later, on February 6th Friedel, suggested in a meeting with constituents and in a press release, that following his meeting with Sheriff Sheridan, the MCSO responded to the concerns expressed during his meeting with Sheridan, by reducing the amount that Fountain Hills would pay for police services by 6%.
On February 21, 2025, in a purported effort to clear up the “confusion” about the reduction Friedel claimed that his meetings with Sheriff Sheridan “resulted in year-over year savings of 6% or approximately $370,000.
Many residents of Fountain Hills are still operating under the mistaken belief that Friedel’s meeting with Sheriff Sheridan saved taxpayers $370,000. By attempting to and succeeding in misleading the residents of Fountain Hills Friedel breached his ethical obligations as codified in the Fountain Hills Town Code.
All of the ethical violations described below have either been
Committed or discovered by me within the past 90 days.
MAYOR FRIEDEL’S VIOLATIONS OF THE CODE OF ETHICS BY FALSELY CLAIMING THAT HIS MEETINGS WITH SHERIFF JERRY SHERIDAN SAVED FOUNTAIN HILLS TAXPAYERS $370,000.
Applicable Provisions of the Code of Ethics
The Code of Ethics is found in Section 8 of the Fountain Hills Rules of Procedure.
The preamble to the Code states in relevant part: “The citizens of Fountain Hills are entitled to have a fair, ethical, and accountable government, which has earned the public’s full confidence. In keeping with the Town of Fountain Hills commitment to the effective functioning of government, public officials, both elected and appointed, shall comply with both the letter and spirit of the laws and policies affecting the operations of government; be independent, impartial and fair in their judgments and actions for the good and not for personal gain. (emphasis supplied).
Friedel violated both the letter and spirit of the Code of Ethics by falsely representing that his meetings with Sheriff Sheridan resulted in a $370,000 reduction in the amount paid by Fountain Hills taxpayers for law enforcement services. In making these misrepresentations and false statements, Friedel sought to and did lead members of the public to believe that he had fulfilled his campaign promises to recoup alleged overpayments and renegotiate the terms of the Agreement.
Section 8.4 of the Code of Ethics obligates every councilmember to: “be dedicated to the highest ideals of honor, ethics and integrity in all public and personal relationships.”
Friedel’s act of falsely taking credit for the $370,000 reduction of the cost of police services undeniably demonstrated a profound lack of honor, ethics, and integrity.
The most fundamental obligation of a public official is to be honest in his communications with the public, particularly as to matters of public interest and concern. For the past 18 months the MCSO Agreement has been a matter of keen public interest, based primarily on the criticisms levelled by Friedel and his supporters.
Section 8.6 of the Code incorporates the following relevant provision:
A. Accountability. We shall ensure that government is conducted openly, efficiently, equitably, and honorably and in a manner that permits citizens to be fully informed to allow them to hold Town officials accountable. (emphasis supplied)
The term “honorably” refers to conduct that is honest, fair and deserving of respect. Friedel did not act “honorably” when he falsely claimed that his meetings with Sheriff Sheridan resulted in a $370,000 reduction in the cost of the MCSO contract.
Friedel made the false and misleading statements described in this Complaint, to lead residents to believe that, after less than 100 days in office, he had succeeded in fulfilling his campaign promise to obtain concessions from the MCSO to make the agreement more favorable to the Town. Had the truth not been discovered, the public would have been deprived of the opportunity to hold Friedel accountable.
Section 8.6 of the Code incorporates the following relevant provision:
B. Respectability. We shall safeguard public confidence in the integrity of Town government by being honest, fair, caring, and respectful and by avoiding conduct creating the unexplainable appearance of impropriety, or impropriety or which is otherwise unbefitting a public official.
Friedel’s act of falsely taking credit for the $370,000 reduction of the cost of police services under the MCSO contract undermined public confidence in the integrity of Town government. It cannot be disputed that dishonesty constitutes conduct that is “unbefitting” a public official”.
EVIDENCE OF THE ETHICAL VIOLATION
The letter from the MCSO advising Fountain Hills of the amount and reasons for the reduction
MCSO’s Law Enforcement Services Agreement with Fountain Hills, and other municipalities that contract for its law enforcement services, including Cave Creek and Carefree, is based on a “cost recovery” model. Essentially, the MCSO recovers the direct costs it incurs in providing law enforcement services and assesses an additional 3% to recover its indirect administrative costs. A copy of the MCSO agreement will be provided to the investigator upon request.
In the contract, municipalities agree to reimburse the MCSO as detailed in annualized worksheets for the fiscal year (See, MCSO Agreement Section III. A. 1) The total amount paid under the contract on a fiscal year basis is subject to a 3% administrative service charge “to help recover a portion of the administrative support costs” (III. D.6)
The reimbursement costs under the agreement are reviewed and revised annually. (III. B.) The MCSO agrees that no later than February 20 of the preceding fiscal year, it will provide the town manager with the calculated annualized amount to be paid for the upcoming fiscal year. (III.B.1). This February deadline aWords the municipalities to factor in the cost of public safety services in budgeting for the upcoming fiscal year.
On February 5, 2025, the MCSO fulfilled its obligation to communicate its calculations and the resulting annualized adjustment to Fountain Hills through a letter signed by Jim Prindiville. The town managers of the other municipalities served by the MCSO would have received similar letters. The most relevant pages of the February 5th letter are found below:
The letter from Mr. Prindiville begins with the following two paragraphs:
“Enclosed, per Section III.A.2.a. of the Law Enforcement Services Agreement between the Town of Fountain Hills and Maricopa County on behalf of the SheriW’s OWice, is the updated Worksheet (Exhibit A) with Law Enforcement charges for FY 2026, eWective July 1, 2025. “
The FY 2026 cost is $5,759,468.37. This a net decrease of $373,243.21 (6.09%) from the current year. “
The explanation for the $370,000 reduction was provided on page 2 of the letter in the following paragraph:
“In 2023, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors took advantage of low interest rates to pay down unfunded pension liabilities, directing $500 million into the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System (PSPRS) and Corrections OWicer Retirement Plan (CORP). This is the first year of reduced pension contribution rates, and they are reflected in the lower benefits rate applied to sworn deputy compensation. “
It is my understanding that on or about February 5, 2025, the town managers of Carefree and Cave Creek received a similar communication from Mr. Prindiville. It is also my understanding that those municipalities were advised that the towns they managed would also pay approximately 6% less for police services during the upcoming fiscal year. The investigator should be able to confirm my understanding by contacting the town managers of those communities.
The documentary evidence establishes that the “savings” Friedel has taken credit for was the result of MCSO’s reduced personnel costs stemming from a decision made by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors in 2023, and did not result from any meeting or meetings Friedel had with SheriW Sheridan.
Friedel first suggests to constituents that his meeting with Sheri< Sheridan resulted in the $370,000 savings
During his campaign Friedel pledged to hold monthly gatherings where residents could ask him any question and he would respond with an honest answer. Friedel asserted that these meetings would promote “transparency” which he claimed had been lacking during the prior administration.
On the morning of February 6, 2025, Friedel hosted his first “CoWee with the Mayor”. During this inaugural event, Friedel stood in the center of the restaurant’s dining room and announced that he had good news about the MCSO agreement. Friedel then advised the attendees that following his meeting with the newly elected sheriW, the MCSO had determined that the cost of police services would be reduced by 6% eWective July 1.
Friedel beamed and the attendees applauded. Later, as he made his way around the room greeting constituents and shaking hands Friedel accepted congratulations for his success.
The misleading press release
On the day of the Mayor’s CoWee, a “News Flash” was published on the Town of Fountain Hills website. The press release was titled, “Town’s MCSO Law Enforcement Contract to Decrease Significantly with No Cuts to Service”.
In the press release, disseminated to other media outlets, including KTAR and the Fountain Hills Times Friedel was quoted as follows:
“I am pleased to announce that the MCSO contract for Fountain Hills residents will go down roughly 6%!” said Mayor Gerry M. Friedel. “A short time after being sworn in, SheriW Jerry Sheridan and I met. I expressed the concerns I had with the contract and to say he listened would be an understatement! This is a win for our entire community.”
https://fountainhillsaz.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=732
Three weeks after this press release was issued, in response to a Request for Public Records submitted to the Town of Fountain Hills, I was provided with an email showing the edits to the February 6 press release prepared by Town StaW, including Paul Soldinger, the Town’s Chief Financial OWicer. The following screen shot of this email is diWicult to read but a hard copy of the original can be obtained by the investigator directly from the Town.
The redlining, in the draft press release, indicates that the following sentence had been included in an earlier draft: “The savings are administrative in nature, with much of it coming from its [MCSO’s] handling benefits payments throughout their agency.” (Paragraph 4, second sentence, emphasis supplied.) Mr. Soldinger suggested that the preceding sentence be modified to read: “The savings are administrative in nature, with much of it coming from MCSO employee benefit costs.” (Id. emphasis supplied) Neither of these sentences, explaining the reasons for the reduction, were included in the published version of the press release.
The redlined document demonstrates that as of 11:25 AM on February 6, 2025, the draft press release correctly advised the residents of Fountain Hills that the reduction was the result of an annual administrative adjustment and, by implication, that the “savings” could not have been the result of any meeting or meetings between Friedel and SheriW Sheridan
To date, Friedel has failed to advise the residents of Fountain Hills what they should have been told during the Mayor’s CoWee and in the February 6 press release: The 6% cost reduction was a function of the savings realized by MCSO attributable to its reduced employee benefit costs that were passed through to Fountain Hills.
Friedel takes direct credit for the savings in a letter to the Editor of the Fountain Hills Times
Toward the end of a letter to the editor, published on February 21, 2025, Friedel took direct credit for the $370,000 “savings”. Friedel’s letter was written as a response to a letter to the editor published by a Fountain Hills resident, Michael Scott, that questioned the propriety of Friedel’s meeting with Sheridan.
Friedel’s letter, titled “Confusion Over MCSO Contract Savings” can be accessed via the following link:
HTTPS://WWW.FHTIMES.COM/STORIES/CONFUSION-OVER-MCSO-CONTRACT SAVINGS-IN-FOUNTAIN-HILLS,565340
In the letter to the editor Friedel took full credit for the $370,000 savings to taxpayers in the following sentence: “My meetings with SheriW Jerry Sheridan resulted in year over year savings of 6% or approximately $370,000.”
Friedel attempts to walk back his claim
It appears that Friedel’s unambiguous and unsupportedstatement, that his meetings with the sheriW resulted in the $370,000 savings, may have come to the attention of SheriW Sheridan or other MCSO oWicials, who asked him to withdraw his claim.
After the letter to the editor was published, Friedel attempted to walk back his statement, through the following “Friedel Friday” post. The post was not published on any of Friedel’s oWicial pages or on the Town’s website. As far as I have been able to determine, the Friedel Friday post was only published on a private Facebook Group, Fountain Hills Connection, that is known for blocking and banishing Friedel’s critics, including me.
In this post Friedel stated: “Let me be clear this [the 6% reduction] has nothing to do with me…”
Friedel’s admission, made to a private Facebook group, does not absolve him of responsibility for his ethical violations. Based on the comments accompanying the post and a statement made by a resident, during the March 4 Town Council meeting, residents continue to believe that the Friedel’s meeting with SheriW Sheridan resulted in the 6% reduction in the cost of police services.
Friedel fails to acknowledge or apologize for his misrepresentations during a Town Council meeting
During the “Call to the Public” at the March 4 Town Council meeting I advised the council and the attendees of my belief, based on the documents I had reviewed, that the mayor had been dishonest when he stated that his “meetings with SheriW Jerry Sheridan resulted in year over year savings of 6% or approximately $370,000.” Friedel made no response to my presentation, although the Rules of Procedure allowed him that opportunity
CONCLUSION
The misleading and false statements made by Friedel concerning a matter of public interest evidenced a lack of honesty and integrity, undermined public confidence in Town Government and constituted conduct unbefitting a public oWicial.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Culp
bethanykculp@gmail.com
651-295-1334