Registered Democrat steals Kalavianakis signs on the Avenue

---

In a stunning, yet not surprising event Sunday July 10, 2022, a patriot took time on a weekend to witness, tail, and confront (on camera) a political sign thief on the Avenue of the Fountains.  Surprising as it may seem, he confessed on camera to the crime.  The Alternative is withholding the name until it is made public through the trial docket but can confirm he is a registered Democrat here in FH.  He has been served and will stand trial in August.  The signs in question belonged to conservative council candidate Brenda Kalivianakis.  Ms. Kalivianakis had a half dozen 4x4 signs as well as the yard signs this person was caught stealing missing that weekend.  The organization with the most signs stolen or defaced is the PAC, Reclaim Our Town.  Those orange and blue signs have been defaced, knocked over, stolen and in some location's multiple times.  No perpetrators to date have been caught.  It is not a mystery why the left would steal the PAC signs as they call out the left specifically for ruining towns, lying about who they really are and what they truly believe.  It must also be mentioned that no Couture or Dickey signs have suffered this fate leading to the logical conclusion that those on the left (Democrats) are responsible just as the Kalavianakis perpetrator.  From the left the messaging is how the conservatives are stealing their own signs so they can blame it on them.  The typical Democrat victimhood, always the victim.

The public has been calling on the mayor for quite some time to publicly denounce these actions but not surprisingly, she has not.  After all, the destruction or theft of signs in opposition to her and Couture benefit them in the election.  Her silence also follows the Democratic lead in other cities run by the left where criminal activity is condoned just as it has been here in FH.  One need only look to Seattle, Portland, SF, et al for examples of this behavior.  The town did just post on the town's social media how they are fighting this vandalism now that one from her side has been caught.   No surprises there.

This perpetrator and any others who may get caught will not face justice until after the election on Aug 2nd so remember Dickey's reaction to this criminal behavior when you cast your ballot.   More as this story develops.

The Green Hornet 🐝 was out observing the Town Council Candidates debate. It was clear the Couture was unprepared and unknowledgeable when it comes to town governance. Clearly being nice is not what we need to to run this town. Tough decisions will have to be made and nice people who do not understand budgets and numbers just will not be able to handle them! As the night progressed, we clearly saw the attitude of the masked Couture crowd change. They clearly saw what the whole room saw, mistake after mistake by their candidate. From stating that she hoped to keep property TAXES higher, to saying several times I just don’t know, or I don’t have an answer for that. The leader of the ruckus the James gang got the room emptied out when they just couldn’t help themselves any longer and exploded shouting and yelling! This should never be tolerated, and the James gang should have been escorted out of the debate. One would hope she gets a permanent ban from any future debates held in this town! She ruined it for the other residents who were there to gather information about candidates to make an informed decision on who to vote for! This is the mantra of the left, don’t like what you hear cause a ruckus and or walk out! We’ve seen it twice now! Once when McMahon walked out of a council meeting not once but twice! And now again as the debate was cleared out by the outburst! It was clear to this reporter that Couture was on the losing end of this debate and will feel the sting come Election Day!

Allen Skillicorn, a successful small businessperson in the advertising and marketing field.  He and his wife moved to Fountain Hills a short time ago from Illinois where he was a Republican state representative from district 66 in Illinois.   There he was a leader who valued people over politics and hopes to bring that same philosophy to the Fountain Hills Town Council.      

Allen is a true fiscal and social conservative committed to protecting citizens’ safety and their pocketbooks.  "For too long our politicians have ignored the citizens, community leaders, and local businesses."  Having watched what's transpired in Fountain Hills since the last uncontested Council race, he decided to step in and join the other two conservative candidates in an attempt to protect the unique character and hometown nature that he and his wife moved here to enjoy and reverse the decidedly uncharacteristic left turn Fountain Hills Town Council has taken.    

In the past two years Fountain Hills has seen antagonistic business sign ordinances, commercial drug treatment homes in our neighborhoods, regressive mandates, and further social decay, all characteristics of left leaning governance.   Competition benefits the people and promotes better policies.   With crime on the rise in Fountain Hills, Allen wants our streets crime free.  With the small businesses just trying to recover from the onerous lockdowns imposed by the current left leaning Mayor, Allen promotes policies that will keep Fountain Hills open for business.  As a public servant, he says his agenda is to serve the people and keep our neighborhoods safe.

The Alternative continues the series of candidate profiles so as to better educate the voters in the upcoming Mayoral and Council races. We'll try to focus on the character of those running to possibly shed some light on how they may vote on issues brought before the town government if elected.  Continuing our series, we profile Ms. Brenda Kalivianakis.        

Ms.  Kalivianakis is a true American having served as a divisional staff officer in the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary which is a volunteer organization and serves as a force multiplier to the US Coast Guard.  It is part of the Department of Homeland Security, DHS.   

Further, The Alternative failed to report certain accolades attributed to Ms. Kalavianakis.  

1.   CG Unit Commendation - 6/23/2019  

2.  Sustained Auxiliary Service Award - 4/3/2020  

3.  Department of Homeland Security Outstanding Unit Award - 2/7/2022  

4.  CG Meritorious Team Commendation - 3/16/2022  

This provides a stark contrast to the self-proclaimed social democrat Cindy Couture whom the Alternative sees more closely aligned with communism or fascism.    Ms. Kalivianakis graduated from Southern Illinois University School of Law in 1988, was an associate editor of the “SIU Law Journal” and graduated 18th in her class. Following her successful passage of the bar exam, she became a prosecutor for the Assistant State’s Attorney in Illinois. Upon leaving the State’s Attorney’s office, she practiced criminal defense law and thereafter created and ran a successful marketing company in the suburbs of Chicago, Ill.  Sounds like the town may have a real lawyer running for council and who would argue with free legal advice that might also be in stark contrast to the current contract town attorney who lives in Gilbert and never seems to have the interests of town residents.  

Continuing, Kalivianakis said she is a principled constitutional attorney that promises to advocate the following principles to the residents of Fountain Hills: maximize economic opportunities that make sense, end wasteful spending and pet projects, ensure the infrastructure is well maintained and safe, ensure finances are stable and sustainable. She makes a commitment “to open, transparent responsive government, respect our special small-town character and always seek new and innovative ways to improve the quality of life for each and every citizen.” 

 In conclusion, the choice is stark.  There goes that term again.  A constitutional attorney, providing free legal advice to the town, who is also a member of the Coast Guard Auxiliary (sounds conservative to this reporter), versus the self-proclaimed communist, retired schoolteacher.   We'll leave that one up to the electorate to make the right (no pun intended) choice.

The Alternative continues a series of candidate profiles so as to better educate the voters in the upcoming Mayoral and Council races. We'll try to focus on the character of those running to possibly shed some light on how they may vote on issues brought before the town government if elected as well as to see if it aligns with the principals of the town populace. Continuing our series, we profile Ms. Hannah Toth.       

Hannah graduated from Arizona State University in December of 2020 with a degree in Business Law. She is a member of the Fountain Hills Chamber of Commerce through her small event planning business, Athlete's Story and also works as an Executive Assistant for the Conservative grassroots PAC, Arizona Women of Action. Hannah was an intern with the Trump 2020 campaign in Arizona, and later became a Precinct Committeewoman giving her experience in the political world and fostering the importance of having elected officials that listen to the public - and the true consequences of allowing town leadership to push their own personal agendas rather than acting as representatives, as is their duty.       

If elected Hannah would be the youngest Fountain Hills Councilwoman ever at 23 and serve in stark contrast to the seemingly communist candidate, Cindy Couture and her campaign manager, sitting Councilman Magazine, who recently told citizens at a council meeting that whatever they wanted him to do, he would do the opposite. As a social and fiscal conservative Ms. Toth intends to align Fountain Hills government more closely with the values of the majority of town .

Reported by Marshall Tucker

In a stunning turn of events, Councilman Alan Magazine was found guilty on three counts of ethics violations connected to his election bullying incident at Pearl Nutrition on January 26, 2022.   Since that time citizens have had to endure two lectures by Magazine, the first about antisemitism, George Soros hating, (probably meant Trump Voting) right wing Nazi's and the latest where he told the public, "When you demand something of me, I generally go 180 degrees in the opposite direction."  The only problem was the word demand is not found on the recoding of the April 5th Council Meeting where this lecture took place.  Then going into a recess, he is heard on an open mic saying, "I can't sit by and listen to this anymore."  These two uncalled for rants were allowed by Mayor Dickey and probably should have been gaveled out.  The conclusion of the ethics investigation reads as follows: "For the reasons explained above, this investigator concludes that Mayor Dickey and Councilmember McMahon did not violate the Code of Ethics. In this investigator’s opinion, Councilmember Magazine’s January 26 visit to Pearl Nutrition violated Section 8.4, Section 8.6, and Section 8.8 of the Code of Ethics."  3 counts.    While McMahon and Dickey were spared in the opinion of this investigator, we at the Alternative will let our readers assess and draw their own conclusions.   Warning.   This report is lengthy and regardless of the conclusion, portrays unseemly behavior of 2 councilmembers and a Mayor tolerating behavior that  of unruly childrecouldn't write the facts any more eloquently than Frank Cassidy, Attorney At Law.  With that, we present 18 pages that take this council to yet another new low.   Dear Mr. Miller, At the request of Town Attorney Aaron Arnson, this firm has undertaken an investigation of four ethics complaints arising out of visits to Pearl Nutrition & Energy by Councilmember Peggy McMahon on January 25 and Councilmember Alan Magazine1 on January 26, and including the February 1 Fountain Hills Town Council meeting where those visits were discussed.  FACTUAL BACKGROUND2  Pearl Nutrition sells protein shakes, waffles, herbal teas, and hydration drinks. It is set up like a diner, with seating available at a smoothie bar and on tables distributed through a dining room about the size of a small coffee shop. The owner, Tim Spielbusch, typically works from opening to closing, Monday through Saturday, and is sometimes assisted by other family members.  Councilmember McMahon visited Pearl Nutrition on January 25, made a purchase, and had a pleasant interaction with owner Tim Spielbusch. The power went out during her visit. She told Spielbusch she was a councilmember and made a call to Town staff about the outage. During her visit, McMahon noticed nominating petitions for Fountain Hills Town Council candidates Mark Biermann and Hannah Toth sitting on the smoothie bar, and asked Spielbusch if he would be willing to take other candidates’ paperwork. Spielbusch said he’d be happy to talk to other candidates about having their petitions, and explained that Biermann and Toth are regular customers of Pearl Nutrition. The power was soon restored, and McMahon completed her visit and left.    After leaving Pearl Nutrition, Councilmember McMahon received a phone call from Councilmember Magazine about an unrelated matter. During the call, McMahon mentioned that Pearl Nutrition had nominating petitions on the counter, and that the owner might let Magazine put Fountain Hills Town Council candidate Cindy Couture’s nominating petitions there. McMahon was aware that Magazine was the campaign manager for Couture and was gathering signatures for her. McMahon could hear Couture’s voice in the background during the call, and heard her say she thought having petitions on the counter was illegal. Magazine then told McMahon he believed having petitions on the counter was illegal. McMahon had no further discussion about the petitions or Pearl Nutrition with Magazine or anyone else until the February 1 Fountain Hills Town Council Meeting.  The January 25 telephone conversation with Councilmember McMahon was not the first time Councilmember Magazine had heard that Pearl Nutrition had nominating petitions on the counter. Magazine’s wife had told him her friend saw nominating petitions on Pearl Nutrition’s counter.  On January 26, Councilmember Magazine went to Pearl Nutrition.  Magazine says he went to Pearl Nutrition to verify what was happening with the petitions, saw the petitions on the counter as he walked in, and was approached by Tim Spielbusch. Magazine asked who was witnessing the signatures on the petitions, and Spielbusch responded that he was witnessing them.  Magazine identified himself as a councilmember and told Spielbusch that the petitions on the counter may be illegal—that the signatures must be witnessed by the candidate. Magazine then left the business.  According to Tim Spielbusch, Councilmember Magazine came into Pearl Nutrition, put his hands on the petitions on the counter, and said words to the effect:  This right here, this is illegal—you cannot take signatures for these candidates. They probably don’t know that. They’re new. But they have to be the ones to collect signatures for this. What you’re doing is against the law.   During the ensuing conversation, Magazine explained that he is on the town council. Spielbusch then said that a councilmember was in here yesterday and never said anything about the petitions being illegal—in fact, she asked him if he would take more. Magazine asked who the councilmember was. Spielbusch responded that it was Peggy McMahon, and Magazine said, “She’s the one who told me to come in here and take pictures of this.” Spielbusch says this upset him—that if McMahon saw this and thought there was an issue, she should have said something to him herself rather than send someone else in. Spielbusch then said he’d look into it, and Magazine left the store.   After Councilmember Magazine left Pearl Nutrition, Tim Spielbusch had telephone conversations with Bridget Biermann, Mark Biermann, and Hannah Toth, who reassured him that he was doing nothing illegal. They all felt that the situation raised ethical issues, so they enlisted the assistance of their mutual friend Christine McGinn, who was familiar with the Town’s ethics complaint process.  Bridget and Mark Biermann, Hannah Toth, Tim Spielbusch, and Christine McGinn met at the Biermanns’ home on Sunday, January 30, to hear Spielbusch’s full explanation of the two councilmembers’ visits, review the ethics rules, and discuss the ethics complaint process.  While there, McGinn expressed concern that the mere filing of an ethics complaint might be ignored by the Town, so she recommended showing up and speaking at call to the public at the next Town Council meeting on February 1 to assure that the complaint would be publicly aired and properly investigated.  Tim Spielbusch, Mark Biermann, and Hannah Toth attended the February 1 Fountain Hills Town Council meeting and spoke at call to the public. Spielbusch was the first speaker at call to the public. He stated:   Hi. I have it written out so I don’t get lost in thought. Good evening, Mayor and councilmembers. I am Tim Spielbusch, a town resident and business owner. I am here this evening to tell you all about a recent encounter with two sitting councilmembers, Mrs. McMahon and Mr. Magazine, during their recent visits to my business. Neither of whom who have been in to support my business in the year that we have been open. Mrs. McMahon came in on Tuesday, January 25th, noticed that two candidates for town council had their nonpartisan nomination petitions available for signature, and asked if I would allow others. I replied yes, and said if they were current customers. On Wednesday the 26th, Mr. Magazine came into my business and informed me that Mrs. McMahon had told him to come in with the sole purpose of taking photos of the petitions. Given that he is a sitting councilmember, I trust that in accordance with the town’s code of ethics section 8 he maintains a deep sense of social responsibility as a trusted public servant, so that when he told me his reason was to take photos that he did. I wonder how the people who signed those petitions would feel about having this information and his intentions with it. Not only that but prior to informing me of his intentions, Mr. Magazine began bullying and threatening me as he stated that what I was doing was illegal and against the law, yet he was unable or unwilling to provide the specific law. I did immediately notify the candidates about these events. While Mrs. McMahon and Mr. Magazine both conspired, their blatant disregard for a local business owner and in accordance with the town’s code of ethics, their behavior, under section 8-3, does not affirm the dignity and worth of the services rendered by the town government and maintain a deep sense of social responsibility as a trusted public servant. Under section 8-4, they are not dedicated to the highest ideals of honor, ethics, and integrity in all public and personal relationships. Under section 8-6, they do not demonstrate friendly and courteous service to the public, specifically section 8-6B as it relates to respectability. And finally, section 8-8, they clearly violated the requirement to conduct business of a town in a manner which is not only fair in fact but also fair in appearance. We are fairly new residents to Fountain Hills and young business owners, owning a business to support our family. We chose this community because of the support for local businesses, and this was not the reception we expected from two sitting councilmembers. I trust the Council will take appropriate actions. Thank you for your time.  Mark Biermann spoke next. He stated:   Madame Mayor. Town councilmembers. I’m also here to talk about the code of ethics violation here that I experienced here also, and particularly with Peggy McMahon and Alan Magazine. I mean, what basically happened here, I mean, Tim kind of mentioned all the sections of codes or whatever, so I don’t need to go into that. But to have Peggy come in on the 25th and then instruct Alan to go in on the 26th is rather shocking, I mean absolutely shocking, and, you know, especially when you use verbiage like you’re doing something illegal and demand that petitions come down, is definitely also a reflection of the interference with an election also. And so, you know, we called right away. We didn’t, we don’t want to do anything wrong. We called up Maricopa County and found out we did nothing wrong. And I’ve also watched many many other candidates out there having assistance in getting signatures. And so, you know, the other thing is as a town councilmember, I mean, you guys are leaders of the of this community, one of the leaders, and to be able to have this happen is definitely a negative mark on the residents and on the business owners in this town, and, I mean, it needs to be addressed, and, you know, I’m asking you, Mayor, you know, Town Manager, I mean, this—this can’t get ignored. We want to have a positive community and a positive perspective with everybody that is as leaders and, you know, what happened here I mean we don’t want this town council race to turn into something that doesn’t need to. It should be a positive experience for everybody in town here, and so I’m hoping to hear back from you guys and not see this just swept under the rug by any means either. The other thing I do want to talk about real briefly here is the fact that I’ve had many many people say, hey, I’d love to see the planning and zoning on TV, and so I know there are some important issues, in particular with the sober housing and detox homes. We need to keep the residents informed on this. This is a big deal. And so I’m asking that that could possibly happen before the 14th. Thank you so much for your time.  Councilmember McMahon left the meeting room while Mark Biermann was speaking. Another citizen then made an unrelated presentation about sober homes, during which McMahon returned to the meeting.  Hannah Toth then spoke and said:   Good evening, Madam Mayor and the council. Council woman McMahon, I would invite you to stay for this one. I am here tonight to share my very deep concerns regarding the incident at Pearl Nutrition on Wednesday, January 26. In a town that speaks so often about our need to support local businesses, I find it appalling that our Vice Mayor, Alan Magazine, entered a local business with no intention to purchase anything, but rather to bully the business owner. He gave false claims as to the legality of this owner gathering petition signatures for Mark and I, two town council candidates. He then admitted that his visit was at the request of Peggy McMahon. I am extremely disappointed by your immature actions which were clearly intended to interfere with Mark and I’s ability to gather signatures to be on the ballot. You both have ran for office before and have first-hand knowledge of these processes. Magazine claimed to Tim that gathering signatures when the candidate is not present is against the law. I find it interesting that the instructions for circulators on the back of these petitions, as I am happy to share, the circulator is the witness to these signatures and, in accordance to Arizona law, signs this affidavit testifying to their witness of each of these signatures. I understand that you, Alan, signed Mark’s petition when he was not present. Mr. Magazine, I am under the impression that you signed Mark’s petition while his wife was gathering signatures for him and he was not present. Were you under the impression that this was illegal then? It is my belief that you both are well aware that this method of gathering signatures is in accordance with state law, and that you conspired to intimidate and bully a local business owner in a partisan political action against Mark and I, and to endanger our relationship with the businesses of Fountain Hills by sowing doubt, despite the non-partisan nature of this election, and therefore the council. As sitting council members and elected officials I would expect you both to hold the processes of our nation’s elections in sacred regard. It is now very clear to me that this is not the case. This incident was a direct violation of the council’s code of ethics in section 8.3, 8.4B, 8.6B, and 8.8. It is not becoming of sitting councilmembers to use bully tactics to threaten a local business owner who at the time was only two days away from celebrating their one-year anniversary. As a young woman raised in Fountain Hills and as a candidate, I am extremely disappointed by the actions of both of you. Due to the nature of this offense, it is my duty to file an ethics complaint against you both, and I will be submitting it to Grady Miller and Aaron Arnson post haste. Thank you.  Councilmember McMahon left the room during Hannah Toth’s presentation.  At the conclusion of call to the public, Mayor Dickey asked if the councilmembers would like to respond. Councilmember Magazine responded first, stating:   I sure would. In response to the two individuals, I don’t know, two or three, who made accusations about me. The amount of exaggeration and misstatement and misunderstanding is absolutely stunning to me. First of all, to accuse me of wanting to take photographs, I didn’t have a camera. I didn’t have a camera. And my iPhone was in my pocket. I never said a thing about taking photos. Secondly, to say that I was bullying. My voice was very modulated. I’m—I was talking to the gentleman the way I’m talking to you, which was, I want you to know that I believe that these petitions are illegal. I believe. I said I believe they’re illegal. And he said, OK, and I turned around and I walked out. So where all this comes from is really news to me. And to the young lady who wants to file a complaint, I say please do—please do. Okay. Because we’ll get to the bottom of this, and I hope if you find that I’m not guilty of anything that you’ll publish that in the paper. Thank you.  Councilmember McMahon then gave her statement:   I would also like to make a couple comments. I think that the three people who spoke and including the business owner is extremely rude, underhanded, defamatory, and it’s totally a bunch of lies and without merit. I walked into your establish in good faith. I saw—I ordered product from you. I saw the petitions. I merely asked if you allowed other petitions. I made no other comment about them. I spent $48 at your establishment. For you and the three candidates to take this opportunity to disparage me in the way that you have shows your lack of character and integrity, and shame on you. If you—I hope you do file a complaint. I really do. Because you’re going to find out, and you’re going to see your lies and the conspiracy theory that you’re perpetuating is absolutely false and without merit. And you owe me an apology, and I expect to receive it from all four of you.  Ethics complaints were filed by Hannah Toth and Christine McGinn on February 2, by Tim Spielbusch on February 3, and by Mark Biermann on February 7, contending that the conduct of Councilmembers McMahon and Magazine pertaining to their visits to Pearl Nutrition and at the February 1 Council meeting violated the Fountain Hills Code of Ethics. McGinn’s complaint also contends that Mayor Dickey’s conduct at the February 1 meeting violated the Code of Ethics.  ANALYSIS OF UNDISPUTED AND DISPUTED FACTS  Tim Spielbusch and Councilmember Magazine agree on certain key facts, including:  • Magazine’s tone of voice was conversational—he did not yell or speak in an agitated way.  • Magazine did not tell Spielbusch to take the petitions off the counter.  • Magazine told Spielbusch that the candidates themselves must witness the signatures.  But Spielbusch and Magazine also disagree on certain key facts, including:  • The definitiveness of Magazine’s declaration. Magazine claims he told Spielbusch he believed this was illegal. Spielbush says Magazine said unequivocally that it was illegal.  • Discussion of photographs. Spielbusch says Magazine said Councilmember McMahon sent him there to take pictures. Magazine says he never said anything about taking pictures, and that McMahon did not send him there.   Councilmember McMahon and Councilmember Magazine also disagree on a key fact about their January 25 phone conversation. McMahon says she mentioned the petitions at Pearl Nutrition only for the purpose of giving Magazine a heads-up that he might have an opportunity to place Cindy Couture’s petitions there. Magazine says that McMahon questioned the propriety of having petitions on the counter.  Each of these undisputed and disputed facts will be analyzed individually.  Councilmember Magazine’s tone of voice  Councilmember Magazine’s tone of voice was conversational. Nevertheless, the complainants contend that Magazine bullied and intimidated Tim Spielbusch. Is it possibly for one to bully or intimidate another in a conversational tone of voice?  To bully someone is to “seek to harm, intimidate, or coerce (someone perceived as vulnerable).” To intimidate someone is to “frighten or overawe (someone), especially in order to make them do what one wants.” Neither of the definitions requires yelling or speaking in an agitated way. Each depends on the relative position of the individuals and the circumstances of the interaction.   Councilmember Magazine went into Pearl Nutrition for the sole purpose of verifying what was happening with the petitions. He was not there to buy anything. A young man behind the counter approached Magazine. Magazine identified himself as a councilmember and used the word “illegal” in reference to petitions on the counter.   Whether Councilmember Magazine bullied and intimidated Tim Spielbusch is a matter of individual judgment. Strictly from a definitional perspective of the terms, it is plausible that Spielbusch felt bullied and intimidated in these circumstances, notwithstanding Magazine’s calm tone of voice.  Absence of direct demand to remove the petitions  Councilmember Magazine did not directly tell Tim Spielbusch to remove Mark Biermann and Hannah Toth’s nominating petitions from the smoothie bar. However, Magazine clearly conveyed his belief that their presence on the bar was “illegal.” The word illegal means “contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law.”3 Tim Spielbusch could plausibly interpret Councilmember Magazine’s use of the word “illegal” in his discussion of the petitions as a request to remove them from the counter.  Councilmember Magazine’s statement that the candidates must witness the signatures  Councilmember Magazine admits that he incorrectly told Tim Spielbusch that candidates are required to witness nomination petition signatures. He knows this is not true—he was personally collecting signatures for Council candidate Cindy Couture when he made the statement to Spielbusch. Magazine meant to say that the person collecting the signatures must personally witness each of the signatures, and that Tim Spielbusch could not possibly satisfy this requirement having the petitions on Pearl Nutrition’s smoothie bar. E It is undisputed that Councilmember Magazine used the word “illegal” to describe the petitions on the Pearl Nutrition counter and then proceeded to give an admittedly incorrect statement to Tim Spielbusch as to what he believed was illegal about it.  The definitiveness of Councilmember Magazine’s declaration  Councilmember Magazine says he told Tim Spielbusch he believed the petitions were illegal. Tim Spielbusch contends that Magazine was unequivocal—that he said the petitions were illegal. Magazine and Spielbusch are the only two witnesses to the interaction.  It is impossible to determine with certainty the definitiveness of Councilmember Magazine’s declaration after the fact. But the circumstantial evidence indicates that Magazine’s declaration was not as equivocal as he intended it to be.   Tim Spielbusch’s immediate reaction to Councilmember Magazine’s statement is consistent with hearing an unequivocal assertion of illegality. An opinion of illegality, even by a councilmember, probably would not have been met with a strong reaction. But Spielbusch’s reaction was consistent with having been told unequivocally that his actions were against the law. He got upset, said he was personally witnessing the signatures (which is what he believed to be the legal requirement), and immediately called Mark Biermann and Hannah Toth after Magazine’s departure to confirm that what he was doing was legal.   Councilmember Magazine’s January 25 phone conversation with Councilmember McMahon provides additional circumstantial evidence of the firmness of Magazine’s belief that having nominating petitions on the counter is illegal. In response to hearing from McMahon that Pearl Nutrition might collect signatures for Cindy Couture, Magazine immediately used the word “illegal” in response to McMahon’s report of petitions on the counter.   Discussion of photographs and being sent  Tim Spielbusch recounts that Councilmember Magazine said Councilmember McMahon sent him to Pearl Nutrition to take pictures.  Magazine says he never said anything about taking pictures, and that McMahon did not send him.  The photography statement may be a simple misunderstanding—Councilmember Magazine could have used a turn of phrase that invoked photography; for example, that he was there to get a better picture of what was happening, and Tim Spielbusch could have misunderstood Magazine’s comment to mean that he was going to take a photo. By all accounts, no photography occurred.   Whatever words were used, Tim Spielbusch got the clear message from Councilmember Magazine that he was in Pearl Nutrition at Council McMahon’s behest. Spielbusch mentioned to Magazine that McMahon had been in the store the day prior and had said nothing about the illegality of the petitions. Spielbusch’s animus toward McMahon arose out of Magazine’s response, which led Spielbusch to believe McMahon thought the petitions were illegal and sent Magazine to Pearl Nutrition to let Spielbusch know it; in essence, that McMahon sent Magazine to do her dirty work.   The important issue is not whether there was a statement or misunderstanding about photography, but that Councilmember Magazine clearly conveyed a message to Tim Spielbusch that Magazine was there at Councilmember McMahon’s behest to let Spielbusch know the petitions were illegal.   The McMahon-Magazine phone conversation  Councilmember McMahon and Councilmember Magazine spoke about the petitions during a January 25 phone conversation, but their accounts of the conversation differ on a key point. McMahon says she mentioned the petitions only for the purpose of giving Magazine a heads-up that he might have an opportunity to place Cindy Couture’s petitions at Pearl Nutrition. Magazine claims that McMahon questioned the propriety of having petitions on the counter.  Councilmember McMahon’s account of the phone conversation is consistent with her interaction with Tim Spielbusch in Pearl Nutrition earlier that same day—she inquired about Spielbusch’s willingness to take other petitions, and he responded affirmatively. McMahon knew Councilmember Magazine was Cindy Couture’s campaign manager and was collecting signatures for her. It would be natural and predictable for McMahon to mention Spielbusch’s willingness to take other petitions.   Councilmember Magazine’s account of the phone conversation matches his belief that having nominating petitions on the counter in a business is illegal. Magazine had already heard that Pearl Nutrition had nominating petitions on the counter before hearing it from Councilmember McMahon,E and Magazine and Cindy Couture had discussed it and shared their belief that having petitions on the counter was illegal.  Councilmember McMahon did not express an opinion about the legality of the petitions during her February 1 rebuttal or in her interview for this report.  In her interview, she described the petition placement on the Pearl Nutrition counter as “sloppy” and expressed doubt that petitions on the counter could be properly witnessed, but did not describe it as illegal. D Only in Councilmember Magazine’s account of his conversation with McMahon do we hear that McMahon believes the petitions are illegal.   All told, the circumstantial evidence supports Councilmember McMahon’s version of the phone call as described in her March 9 interview—that she mentioned the petitions on the counter at Pearl Nutrition as a suggestion to Councilmember Magazine for getting more signature petitions for Cindy Couture’s nominating petitions.  THE CODE OF ETHICS The Town of Fountain Hills Code of Ethics is found in Section 8 of the Board/Commission Handbook Rules of Procedure dated October 5, 2021. It applies to the “Council, Boards, Commissions and Committees” of the Town.   Together, the four ethics complaints cite Sections 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, and 8.8 of the Code of Ethics. Each of these sections will be analyzed in turn.   Section 8.1—compliance with laws  Section 8.1 requires councilmembers to obey applicable constitutions, laws, and ordinances. Three of the ethics complaints contend that the conduct of Councilmember McMahon and Councilmember Magazine violate Section 8.1, but none of the complaints is specific about what applicable law their conduct violated. Two of the complaints point to Magazine’s “intimidation and bullying” and “false and misleading accusations.”  Section 8.2—dedication to effective and democratic local government  Section 8.2 requires councilmembers to “be dedicated to the concepts of effective and democratic local government through democratic leadership,” to “honor and respect the principles and spirit of representative democracy,” and to “set a positive example of good citizenship by scrupulously observing the letter and spirit of laws, rules, and regulations.”   One of the ethics complaints contends that Councilmember Magazine “showed no honor nor respect to the principles of democracy as it appeared he wanted to eliminate the candidates from obtaining nomination signatures.”  Section 8.3—social responsibility as a public servant  Section 8.3 requires councilmembers to “maintain a deep sense of social responsibility as a trusted public servant.” All four ethics complaints contend that Councilmember McMahon and Councilmember Magazine violated Section 8.3 by conspiring to interfere with Tim Spielbusch’s collection of nominating petition signatures for Mark Biermann and Hannah Toth. One of the complaints contends that McMahon also violated Section 8.3 by leaving the meeting during Mark Biermann and Hannah Toth’s call to the public presentations.   Section 8.3’s use of the term “social responsibility” makes it appear to be directed toward ensuring that councilmembers act with sensitivity to social, cultural, economic, and environmental issues.   Section 8.4—honor, ethics, and integrity  Section 8.4 requires councilmembers to “be dedicated to the highest ideals of honor, ethics, and integrity in all public and personal relationships.” Subsection A requires councilmembers to conduct themselves “so as to maintain public confidence in Town government and in the performance of the public trust,” and subsection B requires councilmembers to “conduct our official and personal affairs in such a manner as to give a clear impression that we cannot be improperly influenced in the performance of our official duties.”   All four ethics complaints contend that Councilmember McMahon and Councilmember Magazine violated Section 8.4. One of the ethics complaints contends that Mayor Dickey violated Section 8.4 for failing to maintain order and decorum at the February 1 meeting.   Section 8.5—serve the best interests of all  Section 8.5 requires councilmembers to “recognize that the chief function of local government is at all times to serve the best interests of all the people” and to use “the power and resources of public office to advance public interests and not to attain personal benefit or pursue any other private interest incompatible with the public good.” One of the ethics complaints contends that Councilmember Magazine’s conduct in Pearl Nutrition on January 26 was an “abuse of power and attempt at intimidation” that violated Section 8.5.  Section 8.6—honorable conduct  Section 8.6 requires councilmembers to “ensure that government is conducted openly, efficiently, equitably, honorably, and in a manner that permits the citizens to become fully informed to allow them to hold Town officials accountable,” and to avoid “conduct creating the unexplainable appearance of impropriety, or impropriety of which is otherwise unbefitting a public official.”  All four ethics complaints contend that Councilmember McMahon and Councilmember Magazine violated Section 8.6.   Section 8.8—conduct fair in appearance and fact  Section 8.8 requires councilmembers to conduct the Town’s business in a way that is “not only fair in fact, but also fair in appearance.” All four ethics complaints contend that the conduct of Councilmember McMahon and Councilmember Magazine violated Section 8.8. One of the ethics complaints contends that Mayor Dickey violated Section 8.8 in the way she presided over the February 1 meeting.  REVIEW OF CONDUCT IN CONTEXT WITH THE CODE OF ETHICS  The conduct of Mayor Dickey, Councilmember McMahon, and Councilmember Magazine will be analyzed with the pertinent Code of Ethics provisions in mind.   Mayor Dickey’s conduct  One of the ethics complaints contends that Mayor Dickey committed ethics violations by not demanding that Councilmember McMahon remain seated and for not maintaining order and decorum at the February 1 meeting. This investigator is not aware of any rule requiring the continuous attendance of councilmembers at a meeting. So long as McMahon’s departure from the meeting did not leave the Council without a quorum of members, the Mayor would have had no reason for calling attention to it. The call to the public presentations from the public and the rebuttals by McMahon and Councilmember Magazine occurred in compliance with A.R.S. § 38-431.01 (H) and in a manner consistent with the advice given by the Town Attorney during the meeting. Mayor Dickey’s conduct did not violate the Code of Ethics, in this investigator’s opinion.   Councilmember McMahon’s conduct  Councilmember McMahon purchased product at Pearl Nutrition, had a pleasant conversation with the owner, noticed nominating petitions on the counter, asked the owner if he was willing to consider allowing other petitions, and mentioned to Councilmember Magazine (Cindy Couture’s campaign manager) that Pearl Nutrition was collecting signatures for other candidates and would be willing to consider other petitions. Magazine’s response that he thought petitions on a business counter were illegal made it clear to McMahon that Magazine had no intention of asking Pearl Nutrition to collect signatures for Couture. But McMahon would have had no reason to suspect that Magazine would confront Pearl Nutrition’s owner about the petitions. McMahon’s conduct in visiting Pearl Nutrition and telling Magazine about the petitions in Pearl Nutrition did not violate the Code of Ethics, in this investigator’s opinion.  Councilmember McMahon walked out of the February 1 Council meeting twice during call to the public presentations accusing her of conspiring to intimidate a business owner to remove nominating petitions. Tim Spielbusch, Mark Biermann, and Hannah Toth made conspiracy claims against McMahon in their call to the public presentations in reliance on Councilmember Magazine’s January 26 interaction with Spielbusch. The three speakers spoke what they believed to be true but what has turned out to be false. In short, McMahon walked out of the meeting when confronted with a conspiracy claim she knew was false. When given the opportunity for rebuttal, McMahon said, “the three people who spoke and including the business owner is extremely rude, underhanded, defamatory, and it’s totally a bunch of lies and without merit.” She then urged them to pursue their threatened ethics complaint.   Councilmember McMahon left the meeting instead of taking the opportunity to listen to the presentations and hear the chain of events that led the speakers mistakenly to think she and Magazine were working in concert. And when given an opportunity for rebuttal, McMahon failed to explain that she had mentioned the petitions to Councilmember Magazine not because she thought they were illegal but to let him know that Tim Spielbusch might be willing to collect signatures for Cindy Couture. McMahon’s conduct at the February 1 Council meeting could have been viewed by the speakers as confirmation of their belief that she and Magazine were acting in concert and as evidence McMahon was not willing to be held accountable to public criticism.   Councilmember McMahon’s conduct at the February 1 meeting could arguably be viewed as undermining public confidence in Town government (Section 8.4), not accountable to the citizens (Section 8.6), and not fair in appearance (Section 8.8). McMahon stepped out of a public meeting and stated that she welcomed an ethics investigation after being incorrectly accused of conspiracy to interfere with the collection of nominating petition signatures. Considered in context, these actions seem too minor to constitute a violation of the Code of Ethics, in this investigator’s opinion.   Councilmember Magazine’s conduct  Councilmember Magazine says he went into Pearl Nutrition “to verify that those petitions were left on the counter with no oversight.”  The petitions on Pearl Nutrition’s counter had been described to Councilmember Magazine by at least two sources—seeing them there with his own eyes would be of little benefit to him. He claims he wasn’t there to take pictures, despite Tim Spielbusch’s testimony about Magazine mentioning photography. He wasn’t there to ask Spielbusch if he’d allow Cindy Couture’s petitions to be placed on the counter—Magazine would never have considered allowing Couture to obtain signatures in a manner he believed was illegal. He wasn’t there to purchase product—he had been in the store once before and was not interested in a food store with no oven and no ability to cook.  Once inside Pearl Nutrition, Councilmember Magazine says he expressed his opinion to Tim Spielbusch that the nominating petitions of Mark Biermann and Hannah Toth at Pearl Nutrition are illegal. Magazine contends there is nothing unethical about calmly pointing out to Pearl Nutrition’s owner that he believes the petitions are illegal.  As Cindy Couture’s campaign manager, Councilmember Magazine might someday have occasion to give her advice on whether to challenge Mark Biermann and Hannah Toth’s nominating petitions. Wouldn’t it be fair at least to give the person collecting signatures notice that Magazine believes this manner of collecting signatures is illegal? If Magazine doesn’t say anything, will Spielbusch argue later that Magazine saw the petitions on the counter and never said anything about them being illegal? That’s precisely what upset Spielbusch about Councilmember McMahon—“I asked why she wouldn’t say something to me herself if it was illegal.”  Councilmember Magazine believes the petitions are illegal because they are not being properly witnessed as required by state law. He says, “the circulator must personally witness each collected signature, and then sign the back of the petition that he/she witnessed each signature under penalty of perjury.”  Councilmember Magazine admits that he incorrectly told Tim Spielbusch that candidates are required to witness signatures on nominating petitions. But Spielbusch’s assertion that he was witnessing the signatures shows that he knew the real issue was whether he could possibly be witnessing signatures while operating the store. He asserted that he was in fact witnessing the signatures, and Magazine left the store without debating the issue.  Arizona law requires nominating petition signatures to be witnessed by the person collecting the signatures.  As indicated above, Tim Spielbusch could plausibly have felt bullied and threatened when Councilmember Magazine used the word “illegal” in reference to nominating petitions sitting on Pearl Nutrition’s counter. Spielbusch thought Magazine was saying that Spielbusch was committing a crime by having the petitions on the counter.  But when considered in context, Magazine was simply pointing out that leaving the petitions on the counter made it possible for a customer to affix his or her signature to the petitions without being witnessed. If this were to occur, the signature would be invalid. Magazine used the more forceful word—“illegal”—to describe this, but while the word can refer to a violation of criminal law, it can also be used to refer to something that is simply contrary to law; in this case, a signature that is invalid for failure to be properly witnessed.  Tim Spielbusch might have felt bullied and intimidated to have Councilmember Magazine question his method of collecting signatures, but Magazine’s conduct did not violate any applicable law.8 Magazine’s conduct did not violate Section 8.1.  Tim Spielbusch interprets Councilmember Magazine’s conduct as an attempt to interfere with the ability of candidates to obtain nomination petitions, in violation of Section 8.2. But it can also be interpreted as Magazine’s attempt to scrupulously observe the legal requirement that all nomination petition signatures be personally witnessed by the circulator. Magazine’s conduct did not violate Section 8.2.  Councilmember Magazine’s conduct has nothing to do with “social responsibility” as the term is used in Section 8.3. His conduct did not violate Section 8.3.   In this investigator’s opinion, two elements of Councilmember Magazine’s conduct pertaining to the petitions violated his obligations to meet “the highest ideals of honor, ethics, and integrity” and maintain “public confidence in Town government” (Section 8.4), “ensure that government is conducted … honorably… and in a manner that permits the citizens to become fully informed…” (Section 8.6), and to act in a manner that was “not only fair in fact, but also fair in appearance” (Section 8.8).  The first is that Councilmember Magazine went to Pearl Nutrition in the first place. He had no reason to be there. He did not go there to purchase anything. He was already aware that Pearl Nutrition had petitions on the counter. He had no intention of asking Tim Spielbusch to allow Cindy Couture’s petitions there because he believed the signatures would not be properly witnessed and would therefore be invalid. Magazine was not a nomination petition enforcement officer. To the extent he was acting as Couture’s campaign manager and wanted to give notice that petitions might be challenged, he should have contacted Mark Biermann and Hannah Toth or their campaign managers directly rather than engaging with a business owner who was doing nothing more than following instructions from Biermann and Toth. Magazine invited misunderstanding and claims of misuse of public office by showing up at Pearl Nutrition and asserting his belief that the petitions were illegal.   The second is that Councilmember Magazine led Tim Spielbusch to believe that Councilmember McMahon played some part in Magazine’s January 26 visit to Pearl Nutrition. McMahon would only have played a part in Magazine’s visit if he had gone into Pearl Nutrition to see about Spielbusch collecting signatures for Cindy Couture. But Magazine says he never considered asking Spielbusch to collect signatures for Couture because he believes it’s illegal for nominating petitions to be placed on the counter of a business.   Councilmember Magazine visited Pearl Nutrition the day after Councilmember McMahon’s visit. Having two councilmembers show up at his business and talk about the petitions in consecutive days was suspicious enough to Tim Spielbusch that he mentioned McMahon’s visit to Magazine. In response, Magazine acknowledged that he had spoken to McMahon about it, but failed to say that she merely suggested he consider asking Spielbusch to circulate Cindy Couture’s petitions. Magazine’s conduct left Spielbusch with the logical but incorrect impression that McMahon and Magazine were working together to get Spielbusch to stop collecting signatures for Mark Biermann and Hannah Toth.   Three of the ethics complaints contend that a third element of Councilmember Magazine’s conduct also violates the Code of Ethics; specifically, the “bring it on” nature of his response to being told he would be the subject of an ethics complaint. As with Councilmember McMahon, Magazine’s rebuttal statement indicated he was surprised by the allegations and believed that a full investigation would clear him. The other members of the Town Council, who attended the meeting and personally heard the public statements and rebuttals in real time, are in a better position than this investigator to decide whether Magazine and McMahon were excessively aggressive in their response to hearing about the impending ethics complaints. As with McMahon, Magazine’s welcoming of the ethics complaints seems too minor to rise to a violation of the Code of Ethics, in this investigator’s opinion.

 On this day in history, this reporter is sorry to report a new low in town government was achieved. It started out well enough with the pledge of allegiance, moment of silence, and quickly descended into depths only the Titanic has seen. Beginning curiously enough with Councilman Magazine asking the Mayor for a point of personal privilege. I thought perhaps it was too cold in the room and he was going to ask for the temperature to be raised. Instead, he took a perfectly serious topic of rising anti-Semitism, and turned it into a left-wing rant against the right-wing straw boogie man, Neo Nazi, George Soros haters, Trump supporters and anyone else he could find on the right. He claimed that he got the go ahead from the town attorney for this unusual use of time for a non-partisan body politic and that remains to be seen, but what followed made everyone in the room soon forget that lunacy.  Call to the public opened up with Tim Spielbusch of Pearl Nutrition & Energy making allegations of election bullying by Councilwoman McMahon and Councilman Magazine over the manner in which signature petitions for two council candidates, Mark Biermann and Hannah Toth were being collected at the counter of the store.  Spielbusch sited specific sections of the town code which he believed were violated while Councilman Magazine failed to cite the specific law he claimed to have been violated in the encounter.  Speilbusch was respectful in his allegations while telling the council as young business owners, new to Fountain Hills, it was not the reception he and his wife were expecting when choosing Fountain Hills for opening their new business and moving here.  This was followed up by candidate Mark Biermann confirming having checked with Maricopa County Elections that no election petition signature gathering laws had been violated.  It was at this point the real disrespect and actions unbecoming a council person took place.  Councilwoman McMahon got up and walked out without seeking permission or recess of session, clearly a violation of Roberts Rules, which will need to be addressed at the next session.  Her body language was distinctly angry and disgusted at having these allegations having been made but with no excuse for such an unprecedented show of disrespect to citizens of Fountain Hills.  To Councilman Magazine’s credit, he sat there and took it like a man.  Finally, council candidate Hannah Toth, the youngest council candidate, possibly ever in Fountain Hills history stepped to the podium and delivered a factual and stern reprimand to the sitting councilpersons in question along with a notification of an ethics complaint to be filed with the town manager and lawyer.  At the conclusion of Ms. Toth’s time, Councilwoman McMahon returned to her seat for the remainder of call to the public.  As is proper, at the end of call to the public, council is allowed to respond to criticism at which time Councilman Magazine delivered a measured, calm denial of the allegations after which the utter insanity ensued.  Councilwoman McMahon, chose to lecture her accusers, especially the young Ms. Toth, like an elderly school teacher.  Voice quivering, lips snarling, and voice raised, demanding an apology while the young Ms. Toth sat calm and stoic receiving the blistering attack without flinching.  All this from the woman who did not have enough respect to stay in her seat and hear the citizens out, whether accurate or not.  Lurking in the undercurrent of the circus, this reporter found that what prompted these two to go into the business in the first place was a gift given to them by the unassuming Councilman Friedel. He purchased $20 gift certificates for the entire council as a show of support for this new business seeking no recognition for such actions, quite a contrast.    At last the night concluded with the main event, a discussion on the continuation of the Park Place development, downtown.  It began curiously enough with a question from Councilman Spelich as to why there was even a discussion.  As most informed citizens of the town know, Park Place was a hotly contested development in which normal public forum was abandoned in favor of a backroom development agreement in 2016.  No one liked it then and no one seems to like it now but the discussion ensued none the less.  Without going into too much discussion in this article, here are the highlights.  The developer, Bart Shea, could not figure out why he was there.  The town attorney was so confused he confused himself on several occasions.  The town manager sat mostly in silence as he was part of the cabal that orchestrated the back room, possibly illegal deal in 2016.  The current council clearly didn’t like any of this.  And then the icing on the cake.  Former Councilman Art Tolis, part of the backroom cabal in 2016, lecturing the current council on how it should NOT be in the public forum, but belongs in the back room, yet again, along with another former councilperson and defeated mayoral candidate, Cecil Yates, telling everyone what a great thing Park Place is for Fountain Hills and the town should just allow it to triple in size, unimpeded.   The evening ended with Councilman Spelich slapping down former councilmen Tolis and Yates, and then returning to his opening question, what the heck are we doing here?  Mercifully it all ended.  This is "MUST SEE TV".  Visit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHZQe7HJFso&ab_channel=TownofFountainHills  if you have the stomach.  We’ve got nowhere to go but up from here.