Corruption under Dickey reaches new highs

---

ALTERNATIVE: After the Town Council approved the rezone to allow high density apartments in the Target lot  by a slim 4-3 vote on January 17, 2024, what made Reclaim Our Town decide to get involved in  filing a referendum?  

ROT: We believed that such an impactful and significant rezone should have voter input and that  there were important questions that had not yet been answered. We believed this was a hasty vote considering that Planning & Zoning  had voted against approval a few weeks prior. These concerns were  validated at a later date when it was discovered Kalivianakis had indeed been receiving  information from developers through her personal email, but had not disclosed this the night of  the vote.  A PAC was necessary to file a referendum. Since Larry Meyers and I were already part of an  existing PAC, we filed as Reclaim Our Town due to the time constraints. There were only 30  days total allowed to fill out the necessary paperwork, produce the signature petitions, organize  the circulation team, obtain the required minimum of 1084 signatures of registered Fountain  Hills voters and file the referendum by February 16.  

ALTERNATIVE: And why are you now choosing to provide this update to the Fountain Hills Alternative?

ROT: There has been ongoing “analysis” and misinformation put out by some using social  media pages and letters to the editor (Times)  dedicated to smearing us as individuals and as a PAC.  For example, statements such as, “the court found that ROT’s claim that the Town Clerk  provided Meyers with an erroneously numbered petition sheet was a complete fabrication.” And  they put “complete fabrication” in quotes as though that was in the judgment. It was not. The  court did not find it to be a fabrication. In fact the judge actually gave no basis for his ruling, but  ruled in favor of the developer and Town, likely because the serial number was not provided on  both sides of the petition. Another term they love to throw around is we engaged in “deliberate  deception.” Also untrue. Their social media “analysis” consistently stated things as facts, when  in reality they were simply the opposing positions from the attorneys representing the  developers or Town.  

ALTERNATIVE: On February 28, you apologized on social media to the over 1800 people of Fountain Hills  who signed the referendum petition in an attempt to put this on the November ballot. How did  that come about?  

ROT: There was a Team of about 40 dedicated circulators who worked hard to obtain those  signatures during a period of cold and inclement weather. 1084 signatures were the minimum  that were required, but our Team collected well over that amount for both referendums 2024-01 (1800+)  and 2024-02 (1300+) which essentially guaranteed that these would be on the ballot. So of course,  when it looked like it was all for nothing due to being provided with the incorrect sample petition  form from the very beginning, the disappointment was overwhelming. I felt the need to  apologize to the people for not detecting the small pre printed number that existed on the notary  backside of the petition. Filing the referendum was always about giving the residents of  Fountain Hills a voice in this rezone. It was not a Crystal and Larry or Reclaim Our Town thing. It was for the People. And as I’ve stated many times, our position has never changed regarding  the sequence of events. Unlike the Town who put out various versions initially. Not to mention,  their campaign to encourage signature withdrawals during the final days before the petitions  were filed (election interference).  

ALTERNATIVE: Can you explain the timeline to help everyone understand the sequence of events?  

ROT: Yes. From January 18, 2024 until the day the petitions were filed on February 16, 2024, it  was a whirlwind of working against the clock. We chose to focus on 2024-01 for the referendum lawsuit which related to the 316 high density apartment rezone. When we were called liars for referring  to “serial numbers” plural, we did indeed have multiple serial numbers. We just chose to focus  on 2024-01 for the referendum due to time and money. The Town Council rezone vote for the Target lot occurred late into the evening on Wednesday,  January 17, 2024. It was signed at 11:45 PM so we essentially lost another day for our 30 day  referendum period.  Thursday, January 18, Larry Meyers was provided with paperwork at the Town Hall, from the  Town Clerk, to initiate the referendum process. No flash drive was provided containing forms.  No emailed petition form.  Friday, January 19, the Town Hall is closed.  Saturday and Sunday as well.   January 20 & 21, the correct verbiage for the forms was discussed and  decided upon with the plan to turn in the application for serial numbers on Monday January 22.  On Sunday, January 21, since Larry had been provided with actual paper copies of the forms,  these were scanned into his computer so that the required verbiage could be typed onto the  front pages of the petition forms and the application forms in the appropriate blank boxes.  Monday, January 22, Larry was not able to take the application for serial number forms to the  Town Hall due to assisting an elderly neighbor.  Tuesday, January 23, Larry took the application for serial number forms to the Town Clerk and she assigned 2024-01 and 2024-02.  Tuesday, January 23, Larry added the serial numbers to the fronts of each of the signature  petition sheets that had already been scanned in his computer and partially completed; awaiting  the serial numbers.  Tuesday, January 23, signature petition forms were copied, attached to the associated  ordinance paperwork and dispersed to the circulation Team members.  Friday, February 16, all signature petition forms had been notarized, collected and then filed at  the Town Hall. They were received by the Town Clerk, Town Manager, Executive Assistant and  HR. They were time stamped on the backside notary page and a preliminary tally was made.  Not one person indicated any problem with the back page.  Fast forward to Saturday, February 24, when I saw a social media post from Beth Culp. She  asked about the “rumor” about faulty petition sheets. Keep in mind, Reclaim Our Town, the actual  people who filed the referendum, had not been notified of any problem whatsoever.  I alerted Larry Meyers about this rumor post with a phone call on February 24. While on the  phone with him, he carefully searched all emails and located an unopened email, buried amongst hundreds,  where Linda Mendenhall, Town Clerk, had indeed sent an additional signature petition form. The correct  form. She sent it without any flags of high priority. Without any additional info in the subject line  to draw attention to it (Ex. use this form instead of the one I gave you). And she sent it on the  very day that Larry went to the Town Hall to submit the application forms to obtain the serial  numbers on January 23. There was no mention she had sent this form. There was no question  such as, “Did you get the form I sent today?” We had already received the signature petition  form on January 18, the week before so there was no expectation that another would be sent.  The petition form Larry had received previously from the Town Clerk had already been scanned  and completed and just awaiting a serial number. This additional, important petition email was  never sent to me who was usually copied on emails throughout the process. So  in the “analysis” when they state that we received the correct form, but somehow chose to use  the wrong form, you can see that Reclaim Our Town was unaware of that email until over a  month after the hard copy was received and over a week after the petitions were actually filed.  Reclaim Our Town was not notified by the Town Clerk that all signatures had been disqualified until February 28th.

ALTERNATIVE: So, is it offensive to you to hear accusations from a few attack dogs that you continue to  repeat the “big lie” even after a final judgment has been entered?  

ROT: It is absolutely offensive as well as ignorant.  Just because a judge did not rule in our favor, does  not mean that we automatically switch to a new version of events. We stated what happened  and we have been steadfast in that sequence of events. We’ve always admitted that we did not  detect the pre existing error on the back page. It was a very tiny number that could have easily  been a form number, just as on the front side, lower left corner. We have not denied this was an  oversight on our part. We completed the forms 100% correctly on the front, but we overlooked  putting the assigned serial number on both the front and back. Since we had the incorrect form,  there was no open box which would have reminded Larry to put the serial number in it.  But  more importantly, we did not put the small 2019 number on the backside either. It was pre  existing and we did not recognize it as anything other than a form number.  Other social media “analysis,” included the ridiculous suggestion that we could have used  “white out” and put the correct serial number. That analysis misses the fact that we did not see  the tiny number as an incorrect serial number that needed to be whited out.  And we did not  omit the serial number on purpose nor say, “there was no room for it,” and just decided not to  put it there. It was an oversight because we did not have the correct form,  and we were not  aware that we did not have the correct form. So while some people like to play word games, we  have maintained the same series of events all along. In addition, due to printer malfunction  some of the petition forms contained 2019- while others contained 2019-01.  So no, Larry did  not apply incorrect numbers in two different ways.  Another lie is to tie this number to 2019 Daybreak as to how we got this petition which is 100%  incorrect. I never worked signature collection for Daybreak and I don't even think I signed a  petition. I voted on the issue. Larry was not involved in Daybreak signature collection either,  only signed a petition, and voted. Our attorney was involved in Daybreak, but we did not even  meet him until March 2024, well after the referendum petitions were filed February 16. So this is  a total red herring. I don’t know how that number got on the back side of a petition form that was provided by the Town Clerk, but we did not put it there or unfortunately recognize it  shouldn’t be there.  So that played a big part in us going forward with the lawsuit to try to fight for the People. In our  opinion, getting the wrong form from the Town Hall should have been a consideration to allow  an exception to the strict referendum rule of applying front and back serial numbers. Hopefully  future legislation can address the redundancy of having a serial number on both the front and  the back side of a single page petition.  

ALTERNATIVE: Larry Meyers stated he went to the Town Hall to pick up the paperwork on January 18 and  didn’t you receive a text from him that same day stating he had the paperwork and that he was  coming by your house? Why then was he not seen on the Town’s surveillance video?  

ROT: Yes I did receive that text, I have a copy of it and he did come by my house with  paperwork. We have no answers for why he is not on the video. I never actually was able to  open the video link that we were provided a day or two before the court date. The video was  never in our possession so who knows what someone could have done to the video. It was not  a smooth video to watch and jumped around a lot. With all the AI capabilities we have no clue  what could have occurred with it. Some of us can erase objects or people from photos, so who  knows. We won’t speculate further.  

ALTERNATIVE: Can you explain the  judgment Reclaim Our Town must pay?  

ROT: We are responsible for the taxable  expenses (Ex. Deposition Stenographer). We initially  appealed because no one showed us any invoices from any paid expenses. And the judge did  not tell them to show proof of those expenses to us, so once again he just ruled without  explanation.  No one has ever ruled that this was a “frivolous lawsuit” even though Councilwoman McMahon  herself also incorrectly stated this from the dais on August 13. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfyNvb-sJhE) 9:13 on the video.  The judge did not dismiss this  case during the first hearing, but found that there was indeed cause to proceed. If it was  frivolous then we would have been required to pay attorney fees also, which was not the case.  

ALTERNATIVE: With regards to the resolution recommendation for the Town Council to vote “not to defend,”  do you have any comment?  

ROT: This has incorrectly been associated as some maneuver by Reclaim Our Town. According  to the Council agenda, it was a member of the public who suggested that the Town step out of  the lawsuit by choosing “not to defend.” Three council members saw the wisdom of that, but  now are thrown under the bus by the same elements that criticize and oppose Reclaim Our  Town. It had nothing to do with “not defending the Town Clerk,” as both the Chamber of  Commerce and some members of the Council tried to spin. It was not illegal either for them to  vote for the resolution according to our attorney. It was a way for the Town to get out from under the lawsuit, to keep counting the signatures in the best interest of the residents and to turn them  over to the County. The developer was always going to keep fighting in the lawsuit. And since  the Town essentially sat back and allowed the developer’s attorneys to run the show anyway  during the lawsuit, why not just get out from under it at the developer’s expense.  

ALTERNATIVE: You promised people you would clear up some of these issues once the lawsuit came to a  close. The Town Clerk emailed the Mayor & Council in July stating that Reclaim Our Town had  30 days to file an appeal after that July 10 ruling. Did you consider filing an appeal?  

ROT: The Town Clerk emailed the Mayor & Council in July stating that Reclaim Our Town  had 30 days to file an appeal.  Our attorney informed us this was incorrect. According to ARS  section 19-121.03(B) it indicated an appeal must be filed within five calendar days. So once  again, did the Town Clerk provide the wrong information just as she provided the wrong form to  Larry Meyers, or  when she used the incorrect Superior Court case number twice on an agenda?  People make mistakes. We’ve said that all along.  We knew we only had 5 days to decide about an appeal and whether it was affordable. We did  have some cause to appeal and to be honest, I think there were many things left unsaid during  our court case. Including addressing the Town Clerk incorrectly stating that the plan was for  Larry to file an application for serial numbers on January 18, an impossibility.  That of course was not correct  considering the rezone had just occurred the night before on the 17th, he didn’t have the  paperwork until the 18th,  and we didn’t have the necessary information completed on the forms  to even turn them in.  We pursued the lawsuit initially to give the People a voice on the November ballot, but after further considerations, we decided not to file further appeals due to the time & expense of  battling a developer with deeper pockets. This developer will most likely sell this land off to  another developer now that the lawsuit is over. Hopefully the Town is done making further  concessions for this project and keeps the best interest of the community at the forefront.  Reclaim Our Town is sincerely sorry that this played out in this manner, but do not lose sight of  the reason we even needed to pursue this referendum for the People. The 4-3, premature Town  Council vote from Ginny Dickey, Sharron Gryzbowski, Peggy McMahon and Brenda Kalivianakis  that favored the developer instead of the residents.