THACKER v.

CITY OF PHOENIX.

An open-meetings test of vague agendas, blanket pre-approvals, and the legal-advice exception.

In November 2024, the Phoenix City Council pre-approved 17 executive-session dates for all of 2025 in a single vote. Two of those sessions were noticed only as “Community Citizen Comment.” A statutory special action under A.R.S. § 38-431.07 followed. The trial court granted summary judgment for the City on Feb. 27, 2026; final judgment was entered Apr. 7, 2026. The Notice of Appeal was filed May 6, 2026.

One vote in November 2024. A year of closed-door meetings.

On November 13, 2024, the Phoenix City Council adopted Agenda Item 21 — a single vote pre-approving seventeen executive-session dates for all of 2025. The vote treated a year of closed-door meetings as a single procedural housekeeping item.

Two of those sessions — held January 28 and February 11, 2025 — were noticed only as “Community Citizen Comment.” The same agendas listed other items with names and matter numbers. A public-records request seeking clarity on what was actually discussed was answered with a blanket privilege denial and no privilege log.

The trial court granted summary judgment for the City on February 27, 2026. Even ruling for the City, Judge Minder noted he was “not endorsing the City’s occasionally shifting justification for withholding documents” and observed that the City could adopt the plaintiff’s proposed voting process “to avoid future questions about secrecy from its residents.” The Notice of Appeal was filed May 6, 2026.

A $415,000 city-manager contract that existed before the agenda did.

Three theories. One Count. The Open Meeting Law.

The paper trail.

Trial-court record & appeal.

The trial-court record is closed. The Notice of Appeal was filed May 6, 2026. The next milestones are the appellant’s opening brief and oral argument before the Arizona Court of Appeals.