Arizona School District Blocks Lawmakers’ Request for Financial Records

At the Arizona State Capitol, a dispute over public records has erupted into a test of government transparency and legislative oversight. For the first time, a public school district has refused the Arizona Legislature’s request for access to basic financial records, raising concerns about accountability and the stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

The controversy stems from a July 21 Joint Legislative Audit Committee (JLAC) hearing on district finances. Following that meeting, JLAC Co-Chairman Representative Matt Gress requested two years of financial transaction records, including all purchase orders, from the Tolleson Union High School District. The request, made on August 26, was intended to give lawmakers a clearer picture of how funds were being managed and whether reforms were needed to safeguard public resources.

Rather than provide the information electronically—a standard practice among most districts—the Tolleson district has refused to comply without imposing an extraordinary price tag. District officials are demanding more than $26,000 in fees to turn over the requested data. According to the district’s own communications, these charges are deliberately structured to discourage records requests. That justification, Gress argues, runs contrary to Arizona law, which permits public entities to charge only the actual cost of copying or mailing records, not for producing electronic files.

“Exporting purchase orders from financial software is simple, and other districts have complied quickly,” Gress said in a statement. “It is unprecedented for an Arizona public entity to demand that the State pay for public records or to assert that it can withhold electronic records.”

In an effort to resolve the impasse, Gress sent a follow-up letter on September 17, clarifying his original request and reiterating that lawmakers require the records to properly evaluate reforms and ensure taxpayer funds are used responsibly. His efforts, however, have been met with continued resistance.

For Gress, the refusal represents more than a bureaucratic standoff—it signals a dangerous precedent. “Arizonans have a right to know how their money is used, and blocking these records sets a dangerous and unacceptable precedent,” he said. Transparency, he argues, is essential for the public to have confidence in how schools are funded and managed.

Complicating the matter further is the district’s involvement of the Attorney General’s Office. Gress expressed concern that Attorney General Kris Mayes’s office might be advising the district to withhold the requested documents. He pointed to past instances when the Attorney General’s Office itself complied with legislative records requests while under review. “It would be deeply troubling for her office to advise a district to withhold documents from legislative oversight, especially when the district has already hired private counsel,” Gress said. “Any such advice would undermine Arizona’s transparency laws.”

The dispute highlights a broader debate over the balance between local control and state oversight in public education. School districts receive significant taxpayer funding, and lawmakers argue that they must be held accountable to the public through open records. If districts are able to impose steep fees or otherwise delay access to basic financial data, legislators warn, the ability to evaluate reforms or prevent misuse of funds will be severely weakened.

For Tolleson Union High School District, the choice to block access may have short-term benefits in limiting scrutiny, but it risks long-term consequences in public trust. For lawmakers like Gress, the fight is about more than one district’s financial records—it is about protecting transparency and preserving the right of citizens to know how their money is spent.

The outcome of this dispute could shape future expectations for public records compliance across Arizona. If the district’s refusal stands, other entities may feel emboldened to follow suit. If lawmakers succeed in compelling access, it may reaffirm long-standing principles of openness in government. Either way, the confrontation has already sparked a statewide conversation about accountability, oversight, and the fundamental role of transparency in a democracy.

As the debate continues, one question looms large: will Arizona taxpayers get the transparency they are owed?