“Well, those those are outside the bounds of my employment with the city. So I’m not going to respond to those.”
Rial (Lamar) Whitmer, on tape, in compelled testimony, when asked about his outside employment with The Alliance for Scottsdale’s Future.
That sentence is what a Garrity refusal sounds like. Garrity is the name of the 1967 Supreme Court rule that governs how public employees can be compelled to give evidence in their employer’s investigations. The compromise is a use immunity exchange: the employer can compel the testimony, the testimony cannot be used in a criminal prosecution, and refusal to answer is itself a fireable offense. Public employees who walk into a Garrity-warned interview have already been told that staying silent on a relevant question is grounds for termination on its own.
Laterstack has obtained the 388-page Witness Statements file in the Scottsdale City Hall public records request 26-006729, the same release that produced the Confidential Executive Summary covered in Piece 1 of this series. The Witness Statements file contains fifteen refusals on tape from Whitmer, in addition to the verbatim accounts of seventeen city employees who were interviewed during the 65-day investigation conducted by HR Senior Analyst Jason Stokes and Assistant HR Director Fred Verdugo. The Executive Summary distilled the findings. The Witness Statements file is the underlying record. This piece is what the underlying record says.
The architecture is conduct first, cover-up second, escalation third. The reader is taken through the five conduct findings, given the response Whitmer offered through his attorney, then walked through the recall-interference and failure-to-cooperate findings where the criminal-statute exposure and Garrity refusals concentrate. Every quote in this piece is verbatim from the public records release. Every characterization of intent is attributed to the city’s investigators by name, not to Laterstack.
Finding 1: The Christmas Eve at City Court
The clearest single scene in the investigation begins on the morning of December 24, 2025, when Whitmer arrived at the Scottsdale City Court window to contest a parking citation that was not in his name.
The court window clerk’s account, in her own words, is the opening of the violation:
“Um, he came to my window to address a citation that wasn’t in his name, so I told him uh, but he came and he s- he said that the mayor sent him to address his citation but it wasn’t his citation. And then he took out his business card and told me that he was the Chief of Staff and that he wanted to fix it.”
The judge declined to see Whitmer. The court bailiff, who watched the exchange and gave the longest direct-witness account in the file, recalled that Whitmer then named the city’s Chief of Police as the person he intended to escalate to:
“And again, he stated that that’s not how the City Attorney said it would go. Um; and then handed me his business card, and I just told him that I treated every citizen the same in Scottsdale. It doesn’t matter to me what your business card says. And then he said he was going to contact the, um, Chief of Police, and he said a name but I don’t know what name he said. I don’t know who our Chief of Police is. Um, and I wished him well with that.”
After the judge’s refusal, Whitmer mocked the bailiff, the court window clerk recounted, with a Peter Pan reference. “He was just being very, um sarcastic, he said, ‘Peter Pan?’ And he was like, ‘So what does that mean? Does that mean Tinker Bells the bailiff?’ And I was like, ‘No. It’s no, no.'” The bailiff then described Whitmer physically shoving his city business card across the court window: “Well, the first time he just tried to hand it to me, and I was sitting back there and then he was like, ‘Oh, no. Thank you. I don’t need your business card.’ And then after the judge had refused to see him; he, like, set it down and shoved it at me.” Asked by the investigators directly whether Whitmer was attempting to use his position to influence his wife’s parking citation, the bailiff answered with a single word: “Yes.”
In his Garrity interview, Whitmer answered with an admission that took the form of a challenge: “‘Cause I wanted to identify myself if the judge came out so that I could get this thing straightened out. Do you think that’s wrong?” He flatly denied the Peter Pan and Tinker Bell mocking the clerk had described, telling investigators “That is completely absurd and a lie” and, separately, “You’re just making this shit up then.” The bailiff and the clerk gave consistent accounts; Whitmer denied the specific incident; the city investigators substantiated the finding.
A separate Supplemental Addendum to the investigative report, dated March 24, 2026, addresses the parking-citation matter under a Scottsdale Revised Code 14-72(8) standard for “knowingly made a false statement.” That document was included in the records response and was previewed in Piece 1’s scope notes.
Finding 2: A pattern of unprofessional comments
The Christmas Eve scene was not an isolated event. The investigators substantiated a pattern of unprofessional and offensive comments that ran across Whitmer’s three months in the office. The clearest single passage in the entire 388-page file is Whitmer’s own retelling of an earlier comment, made in the form of a story he chose to repeat under Garrity:
“I don’t recall making that comment, but there is a story behind that… the Navajos have a tradition that at the first you know, that the snow, the first good snow, you go out and you roll around in the snow without clothes. And the Navajo president and his brother suggested that I do the same, and I said I doubt that I would do that because the Navajo police would pick me up for indecent exposure. And he said that it would that would be okay because I’d probably be as red as an Indian. Is that an inappropriate story to tell? No.“
That last sentence is Whitmer’s own verdict on his own conduct, on tape, in his employer’s investigation. The investigators reached a different verdict.
On the same Christmas Eve trip to the courthouse, the screening officer at the security checkpoint testified that Whitmer surrendered a knife and made a comment with a knife-mime gesture. The court security supervisor who reviewed the incident with contemporaneous notes recorded the comment this way: “So as he came around, he… uh, it was… he made a statement, he… something like Allah Akbar, he goes, ‘I was told to say Allah Akbar,’ and I’m like, and I thought that was very, very strange. Why would you even say that?” The Muslim screening officer who took the knife filed a complaint that day: “I said, uh, ‘I wanna file a complaint. I don’t appreciate that.’ Um; I don’t know if I opened up a can of worms because of that, but, uh, I didn’t like the comment he made. I thought it was, um; derogatory toward Muslim people.”
A senior city attorney’s birthday party earlier in Whitmer’s tenure produced a comment about gypsies and deportation that, per multiple witnesses, caused another attorney to walk out of the room. One witness recounted: “I remember it was something to do with gypsies, his word again… they all ended up getting deported and he thought that was really funny and [REDACTED] was, like, so offended she left the room. She said that’s not okay and she left the room.” Whitmer’s response in his Garrity interview, asked specifically about the comment, was: “To overly sensitive people, sure.”
A staffer Whitmer called by phone during her shift recalled him alluding to required onboarding training in these terms: “He alluded to the onboarding training that we provide… And he said something to the effect of, ‘I have been dealing with all of the onboarding training, the sex trafficking makes me think some of the ladies I have dated have probably felt the same way.'” Whitmer’s Garrity reframe of the call was that the substance was actually about grooming, that he felt up until the last five minutes that the training applied to him personally, and that the topic was human trafficking rather than sex trafficking.
Whitmer’s umbrella defense across the entire pattern was a single rhetorical move that repeats throughout his interview: “If you’re saying that to be a city employee you have to, uh, strip yourself of any sense of humor, it’s just absurd and impossible.” The most senior witness in the investigation put a number to the result the investigators concluded: “There was a couple of comments made to me like, hey, I don’t wanna meet with Lamar, will you be in the room?… I do not feel comfortable meeting with Lamar. Will you please put me in with the mayor?… I can meet with you if the mayor has that direction but I don’t wanna be alone with Lamar.”
Finding 3: Insubordination
The same senior witness, asked about Whitmer’s relationship with Mayor Borowsky, confirmed that Mayor Borowsky herself had reprimanded Whitmer twice before HR ever opened an investigation file: “100%. The mayor’s actually reprimanded him on two separate occasions, um, for the way that he communicated.”
The substantiated insubordination conduct centers on a hypothetical Whitmer asked the city’s senior Building Official, in a meeting where Whitmer had a property owner on speakerphone seeking permits the official’s department had refused to issue. The Building Official’s verbatim of Whitmer’s question: “And then he asked me a question that I thought was And I found it kind of unusual. He should know the answer to. He says, ‘Well, if the city manager told you, directed you to issue those permits, would you do it?'”
In his Garrity interview, Whitmer admitted arguing with the City Manager and reframed the entire investigation: “I recall being told that. I also recall arguing with him, saying that that my job description was not that my job description and the charter allows me to make inquiries. I don’t have to go through his office to do those… this whole effort here has been to immobilize the mayor’s office and her agenda and her outreach efforts.” Asked separately whether he had been given a directive he disregarded, he answered: “I didn’t feel the I had that authority in the first place. Secondly, if it was if he was going to do that, he should have written a directive directly to me because I would have contested it vigorously. There’s no way I wouldn’t have contested it.”
Other substantiated insubordination conduct includes calling another speaker “an effing liar” during a council recess (Whitmer admitted this in his interview: “And that’s when called the mayor a liar about the deal, the 1,500, to which I called an effing liar”), and a documented exchange with the Scottsdale City Clerk over a proposed rules-of-procedure change in which Whitmer told the Clerk it would “be like, you know, a shame if that stopped or didn’t continue.”
Finding 4: Outside employment, conflict of interest, and a contradiction in his own words
The Alliance for Scottsdale’s Future is the political nonprofit at the center of Piece 1, the organization the city investigators concluded had run ads against three sitting Scottsdale city councilmembers and against a council-approved Old Town parking structure. The Witness Statements file adds physical-evidence corroboration that did not appear in the Executive Summary.
A senior Mayor’s-office staffer testified to seeing an Alliance ad open on Whitmer’s personal laptop in his city office: “Um, I saw something on his on his private computer.” “Uh, an ad.” “Uh, it felt like it was more, someone had sent it to him.” A separate witness from the city’s planning office, asked a general background question about Whitmer’s outside work, surfaced the Arizona Corporation Commission record without any prompting from the investigators: “I noticed that Lamar, along with a few others; um, part of that Alliance for Scottsdale’s Future were And I thought that seemed strange if he’s a City employee and then also, um, part of that group.”
Whitmer’s foundational admission, given in his Garrity interview, settled the public-record question directly: he confirmed under compelled testimony that he was, at the time of the interview, “currently the president” of the Alliance for Scottsdale’s Future. Asked whether the city paid him while he did Alliance work, he answered: “Yes.”
The clearest documentary moment in the entire file, however, is a contradiction Whitmer produced inside one continuous interview session. Asked first about a photograph the investigators showed him of his own city office whiteboard, Whitmer confirmed it was his writing and explained: “the mayor wanted to do something with respect to economics… we talked about it. put it on put it on the whiteboard.” The whiteboard, in his own confirmation, said “Scottsdale Economic Alliance.” Three pages later in the same interview, Whitmer told the investigators: “What what what is the what is the Scottsdale Economic Alliance? It doesn’t exist. How can I how can I work on something that doesn’t exist?” Two pages after that, he reconciled the two answers in a single sentence: “It’s if it’s the mayor’s initiative and I’ve talked about it while on city time, I don’t see that as an issue.”
A separate substantiated conflict involves The Fulcrum Group, the consulting entity through which Whitmer sent invitations to Arizona Republican Roundtable breakfast events using the Fulcrum email domain on dates during his city employment, including twice while on paid non-disciplinary leave. Whitmer’s defense in his Garrity interview took the form of a sole-proprietor loophole: “Well the question is, am I, uh yeah, am I an employee of the Fulcrum Group? No. I own the Fulcrum Group. I am the Fulcrum Group.” The senior Mayor’s-office staffer’s account of the timing was less rhetorical: “I think that he was running into some of those same things where he had some, some of his Fulcrum consulting, whatever that, that entity is. I think that he was kind of tidying up some of that to get fully on board with the city. And honestly, I think some of that overlapped.” Laterstack will publish a dedicated piece on the Fulcrum Group and Arizona Republican Roundtable component of the findings as Piece 3 of this series.
Finding 5: Attorney impropriety, OtterAI, and the weapons-at-work questions
Finding seven in the Executive Summary covers what the investigators called the appearance of impropriety in Whitmer’s handling of attorney-related matters. The centerpiece is a meeting Whitmer convened on December 17, 2025, with an outside attorney representing private property owners, on a permit dispute the city’s Board of Adjustment had recently ruled on. The attorney’s own laptop recorded the meeting using the OtterAI transcription service, a fact a senior Mayor’s-office staffer confirmed under one-word direct questioning: “Yes. Otter.ai.” The same staffer testified that when she had asked Whitmer about the recording before HR opened an investigation, “I don’t know. I asked Lamar about that and he didn’t really give me an answer.”
Whitmer admitted in his Garrity interview that he had convened the December 17 meeting specifically to pressure the City Manager: “Well, uh, I think the purpose of the of the meeting was that, uh, that I asked for it, was to see if we couldn’t get the City Manager to uh, postpone action for a while to allow the the ordinance to be amended.” Asked separately about a prior personal relationship between himself and the outside attorney, and whether that relationship had been disclosed at the December 17 meeting, Whitmer’s answer is the most concise admission on this finding: “That wasn’t disclosed. It wasn’t relevant to the discussion at hand.”
The investigators also documented a separate pattern, raised by the city’s Building Official: “I have a con- concealed carry weapon permit. He says, And I’d asked the city attorney if I could bring my weapon to work. And the city attorney told him no. And he says he asked him a couple of times. And he kept telling him no.” The Christmas Eve scene at City Court contains the bridge sentence to the same finding: at the security checkpoint, Whitmer challenged the courthouse’s knife-surrender requirement by asking, “the city attorney says I can carry it with me on their side. Why can’t I carry it over here?”
What Whitmer says
The notice of claim filed by Whitmer’s attorney Dennis Wilenchik on April 10, 2026, is the substantive on-record response Whitmer’s side has offered. Per Piece 1’s coverage of the notice, Wilenchik has called the HR investigation “a sham” and “predetermined to defame Mr. Whitmer.” Laterstack sent a written request for comment to Wilenchik on April 22, 2026 with a response deadline of April 23 end of business for inclusion in Piece 1, and a second window of April 27 end of business for inclusion in Pieces 2 and 3. No response was received from Wilenchik by either deadline. Laterstack also sent written requests for comment to The Alliance for Scottsdale’s Future at scottsdalealliance.com and to The Fulcrum Group via the contact form at thefulcrumgroup.com on April 24, 2026, with a response deadline of April 27 end of business. No response was received from either party. Their non-response is reproduced here as a matter of record.
Finding 6: Recall petition interference (A.R.S. 9-500.14)
The substantive escalation in the file occurs in two adjacent pages of Whitmer’s Garrity interview. The investigators asked him a series of direct yes-or-no questions about a recall petition that, the Executive Summary established, had been pulled in connection with Mayor Borowsky. Whitmer’s answers, in his own words, are short. They are also the substance of the substantiated finding under Arizona statute A.R.S. 9-500.14, which prohibits the use of city resources to influence a recall election, including “supporting or opposing the circulation of a petition for the recall of a public officer.”
Q: did you ask who requested the recall petition? A: “Yes.”
Q: did you ask the petitioner for a copy of the recall petition? A: “Yes.”
Whitmer separately confirmed that the information about who had pulled the recall papers had reached him from Mayor Borowsky: “I had heard that from the mayor.” He also confirmed that he had personally arranged and held a meeting with the petition requester during work hours using city resources: “I arranged it.” “They were held at the Kiva conference room at 3 o’clock on Tuesday the 13th.”
A senior Mayor’s-office staffer who was in the room when the recall papers were first raised described the moment in the staffer’s own words: “He literally just said, just in full disclosure, we have pulled recall papers for you.” That staffer, asked by the investigators what she understood the comment to mean in context, was direct: “And I think they were using that as a as a threat, quite frankly.”
A separate Clerk-level witness recounted that she explained to Whitmer at the time that the conduct he was undertaking was procedurally improper: “explained to him that could not talk to him about it because it was an election related matter; and that City employees can’t be involved with elections… he indicated that he disagreed with that.” She then escalated to the Scottsdale City Attorney for an independent read: “called the City attorney just to make sure he and were on the same page about employee involvement in election matters, and that a recall matter is considered an election matter, and he did agree with me.” The investigation made no finding against Mayor Borowsky. The factual record places the Mayor in the recall-information chain. The formal violation, in the city’s substantiated finding, runs against Whitmer alone. The Arizona Attorney General has historically reviewed alleged violations of A.R.S. 9-500.14 when they are referred for review. Whether that referral occurs is outside the scope of this piece.
Finding 7: Failure to cooperate
The fifteen refusals are the file in compressed form. They occur in a continuous stretch of Whitmer’s interview, in answer to questions the investigators asked about The Alliance for Scottsdale’s Future and the Fulcrum Group. The pattern is a single sentence repeated in different forms: that the question is outside the scope of his employment with the city, and that he is therefore not going to answer it.
The lede sentence of this piece is one of those refusals. The dismissal kicker is another: “You’re not gonna get a response, so let’s move on.” The blanket refusal: “We do too. And this is outside the scope, so I’m not responding to any inquiry into these.” The version directed at his outside-employment activity while on city paid suspension: “My role and scope of my employment with the city does not is not relevant to any activity with the Alliance for Scottsdale’s future.”
The same interview contains the worldview the refusals are operating inside. “I’m just angry at the whole process because I think it’s a farce.” “We’re really getting to the heart of the matter now, of what this farce and charade is all about, but go ahead.” “I actually think the, uh, this whole endeavor has been an overreach by the city manager.” Each line is in Whitmer’s own voice on tape. Each is part of the file the investigators eventually delivered to City Manager Caton.
The very last sentence Whitmer spoke on the record, at the close of the entire compelled-testimony interview, is the closer of this piece because it does not require a closer. “Since you’re paying me, I guess I could do that. Well, not you guys. You probably don’t live here but you spend money here.”
Why this matters outside Scottsdale
The findings here matter past a single city for the same reason the Piece 1 framing on the Alliance and the Juneteenth-recall arc matters: a senior political appointee operated for three months at the boundary between municipal duty and outside political work, then refused to answer questions about that boundary when the city’s investigators asked him to. The state element is that A.R.S. 9-500.14 exists, and that this is the first substantiated city-level finding under the statute that Laterstack has identified in the recent record. The institutional element is that a city manager in a council-manager form of government fired a senior political appointee whose boss publicly disagreed with the firing, and the question of which office’s authority controls is now in front of a court via a $1.5 million notice of claim.
The piece readers should expect next, Piece 3, focuses on the Fulcrum Group / Arizona Republican Roundtable component of the findings and is gated on the city’s Exhibit 15 and Exhibit 20 calendar cross-check. Laterstack’s Tucson coverage, the Arizona AI preemption framework piece, and the RealPage YieldStar Arizona explainer are the relevant background on the Arizona accountability beat this series sits inside.
Methodology
The reporting in this piece relies primarily on the 388-page Witness Statements and Interview Notes file released by the City of Scottsdale in its partial response (received April 21, 2026) to public records request 26-006729. The file was processed through optical character recognition. Every direct quotation in this piece is reproduced verbatim from the public document as released, including transcription artifacts and the speaker’s own filler words. Witness names in the released file were redacted at source by the city; this piece refers to witnesses by role (court window clerk, court bailiff, Building Official, senior Mayor’s-office staffer, etc.) rather than name. Characterizations of intent are attributed to the city’s investigators (Jason Stokes, Senior HR Analyst, and Fred Verdugo, Assistant HR Director) by name. Analytical passages are presented as Laterstack’s good-faith reading of the public record. Additional context draws from public reporting by KJZZ, 12News, Scottsdale Progress, scottsdale.org, East Valley Tribune, Axios Phoenix, Newsweek, and other outlets listed in the Sources section.
Requests for comment
Laterstack sent written requests for comment to Dennis Wilenchik (Whitmer’s attorney) on April 18, 2026 (with a response deadline of April 20 end of business for inclusion in Piece 1) and on April 22, 2026 (with the substantiated findings stated and a response deadline of April 23 end of business for Piece 1, and April 27 end of business for inclusion in Pieces 2 and 3). No response was received from Wilenchik by any of those deadlines. Laterstack also sent written requests for comment to The Alliance for Scottsdale’s Future via the email address ScottsdaleAlliance@gmail.com (the verified contact channel on scottsdalealliance.com) on April 24, 2026, and to The Fulcrum Group via the contact form at thefulcrumgroup.com on April 24, 2026, with a response deadline of April 27 end of business for inclusion in Pieces 2 and 3. No response was received from either party. Laterstack will add any responses received after publication as dated updates to this piece.
Scope notes
- The allegation that Whitmer solicited a campaign donation from Axon was found not substantiated by the city’s investigation, as documented in Piece 1. Axon is named in this piece only to clarify the scope of what was investigated and ruled out. Laterstack is not alleging any improper conduct by Axon or any of its officers or employees.
- Mayor Lisa Borowsky is referenced in this piece to the extent the public record places her in the information chain on the recall-petition matter (Whitmer told the city investigators he learned of the recall request from her, per his own Garrity admission). The investigation made no finding against Mayor Borowsky. Nothing in this piece alleges or implies any improper conduct by the Mayor.
- City Manager Greg Caton appears in this piece as the official who issued the dismissal letter and as the supervisor whose authority Whitmer admitted, in his Garrity testimony, he had argued with. No allegation of wrongdoing is made against the City Manager.
- The NAACP is referenced only for the limited fact that one witness, per the Executive Summary covered in Piece 1, characterized a recall-related conversation as a possible vehicle to encourage a dialogue between the Mayor’s office and the NAACP. Nothing in this piece alleges or implies any improper conduct by the NAACP or its representatives.
- Scottsdale councilmembers Barry Graham, Adam Kwasman, and Jan Dubauskas are referenced only as the publicly reported targets of advertising by The Alliance for Scottsdale’s Future, as documented in Piece 1. No allegation against any councilmember is made in this piece.
- Jason Stokes, Fred Verdugo, Greg Caton, Monica Boyd, Holly Peralta, and the Scottsdale City Clerk and City Attorney appear in this piece only in their professional capacities as referenced in the official public records. No allegation of wrongdoing is made against any of them.
- The “outside attorney” referenced in Finding 5 is not named in this piece because the released portion of the records file does not identify the attorney by name. Laterstack does not impute the public-records-act question to the unnamed attorney.
- Direct quotations from witness testimony are reproduced for the purposes of news reporting, comment, and criticism, uses expressly protected as fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107 and as fair report privilege under Arizona law for matters of public concern in official municipal proceedings.
- Characterizations of Mr. Whitmer’s conduct in this piece are drawn from the substantiated findings of the Executive Summary and from the verbatim testimony in the Witness Statements file. Where the piece offers analysis of those findings, it is presented as Laterstack’s good-faith reading of the public record and is clearly marked as analysis.
Legal posture
This piece reports on matters of public concern involving a public official and an official municipal proceeding in Arizona. It relies on records lawfully obtained through a state public records request. Reporting on the content of an official municipal investigation, the verbatim text of a Garrity-warned compelled-testimony interview as released by the city, and the public posture of all parties involved is entitled to fair report privilege under Arizona law. Analytical passages reflect Laterstack’s good-faith commentary on a matter of public concern and are protected opinion under applicable First Amendment and state law, including the protections of Arizona Revised Statutes 12-751, Arizona’s anti-SLAPP statute as expanded effective September 24, 2022, which explicitly protects the lawful exercise of freedom of the press.
Corrections and updates
Laterstack is committed to accurate reporting. Any party that believes a factual statement in this piece is inaccurate is invited to contact the editor at lamar@laterstack.com. Substantiated corrections will be published inline with timestamps. New information received after publication will be added as dated updates rather than silent edits.
Image credit
Featured image: Old Town Scottsdale, East 1st Avenue. Original photograph by Marine 69-71 via Wikimedia Commons, used under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. Brand-treated by Laterstack for this piece.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a Garrity interview?
A Garrity interview is a compelled-testimony interview of a public employee conducted under the rule established by the 1967 Supreme Court case *Garrity v. New Jersey*. The employer can compel the employee to answer questions in an official investigation, but the testimony cannot be used against the employee in a criminal prosecution. Refusal to answer is itself a fireable offense for the public employee.
How many times did Whitmer refuse to answer in his HR interview?
Fifteen. Across the compelled-testimony interview conducted by Scottsdale’s Senior HR Analyst Jason Stokes and Assistant HR Director Fred Verdugo, Rial (Lamar) Whitmer declined to answer fifteen separate questions on the record, citing the bounds of his employment with the city.
What is records request 26-006729?
A public records request submitted by Laterstack to the City of Scottsdale, to which the city issued a partial response on April 21, 2026, including a 388-page Witness Statements and Interview Notes file. That file is the primary source document for this piece.
What did the city’s investigation substantiate?
Seven findings against Whitmer, including unprofessional comments documented in witness testimony, insubordination, undisclosed outside employment, attorney impropriety connected to OtterAI transcripts, and recall-petition interference under A.R.S. 9-500.14. The Axon donation-solicitation allegation was found not substantiated.
Was Mayor Lisa Borowsky implicated by the investigation?
No. The investigation made no finding against the Mayor. She is referenced in the public record only to the extent that Whitmer’s own Garrity testimony placed her in the information chain on the recall-petition matter.
What is A.R.S. 9-500.14?
Arizona Revised Statutes 9-500.14 is the state statute governing the use of city resources to influence the outcome of a candidate election, recall election, or ballot measure. The Whitmer investigation produced what Laterstack believes is the first substantiated city-level finding under this statute in the recent record.