The evidentiary hearing was a disaster for Reclaim Our Town (ROT). ROT owes an apology to the town and all of its citizens.

On February 28,2024 , Reclaim Our Town Chairperson (ROT) Crystal Cavanaugh issued an apology to  “ALL THE DEDICATED CITIZENS WHO HELPED COLLECT REFERENDUM SIGNATURES”.  The apology was offered after Ms. Cavanaugh was advised that all the signature sheets had been rejected by the Town because they did not comply with the requirements of state law.

Based on the evidence presented at the May 21 hearing in the pending Referendum Litigation, Ms. Cavanaugh should extend that apology to “ALL THE CITIZENS” of Fountain Hills.  For four months the citizens of Fountain Hills have been required to fund the defense of this frivolous litigation, compelled to sort through the misinformation and disinformation, and suffer the embarrassment resulting from the unfounded accusations of corruption, collusion and conspiracy.

In her initial post, published on Fountain Hills Connections, Ms. Cavanaugh first advanced the claim that the Town Clerk was to blame for ROT’s failure to submit signature sheets that complied with state law because “the Town gave us a form with a preexisting tiny number that remained undetected by the Team”.  According to Ms. Cavanaugh’s post, a “referendum Team member” (subsequently identified as Larry Meyers, ROT’s treasurer) picked up the packet containing the “tainted form” on January 18, 2024. Cavanaugh’s claim that the Town “set us on a path to failure” fueled the libelous rumor that the Town, in general and the Town Clerk (Linda Mendenhall), in particular, conspired with the developers of the Four Peaks Project to defeat the Referendum by deliberately providing ROT with a faulty form. 

ROT DID NOT SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM DURING THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING

In this action ROT is asking the Judge, an agent of one branch of government, to order the Town Clerk, an agent of another branch of government to accept the faulty signature sheets. As the plaintiff, ROT has the burden of proving all of the facts that are material to its claim. 

The Judge may and should ultimately determine that ROT cannot be excused from complying with the requirements of the statute even if it could meet its burden of proving that Ms. Mendenhall provided it with a faulty form.  However, even if the Judge found that ROT had no obligation to review the completed signature sheets (to ensure that they complied with the statutory requirements) the evidence it presented at the hearing fell far short of establishing that Ms. Mendenhall provided it with a “tainted form”.

As noted above, ROT has consistently maintained that the “tainted form” was provided to Larry Meyers on January 18, 2024.  In his Sworn Declaration, signed on March 24, 2024, under penalty of perjury, Meyers claimed that on January 18, 2024 he went to Town Hall where he met with Ms. Mendenhall who provided him with “certain referendum materials,” including a physical copy of a sample petition sheet. Meyers went on to state that on that same day he scanned the faulty petition sheet into his computer.

During the evidentiary hearing, Meyers similarly testified that he went to Town Hall on January 18, 2024 where he met with Ms. Mendenhall who provided him with “three sheets” which he scanned and made PDF files that he would later fill in.  Meyer’s also testified that he met with Ms. Cavanaugh on January 18.

Ms. Mendenhall, who also appeared as a witness, testified that she did not meet with Meyers on January 18th.although she did speak with him on the telephone that day.  Ms. Mendenhall testified that during this telephone conversation Meyers said he would come to the Town Hall later that day but failed to do so. Ms. Mendenhall went on to testify that she met with Meyers on January 23, 2024, and provided him with the referendum materials at that time. 

During his testimony, Meyers was shown surveillance footage taken on January 18, 2024. The surveillance video undercuts Meyers’ claim that he was provided with the “referendum materials” and scanned them into his computer on January 18th. The surveillance video did not show Meyers walking into or out of Town Hall on January 18. Ms. Cavanaugh also testified that she did not meet with Meyers  on May 18 after he allegedly received the referendum materials from the Town Clerk.

The surveillance video did show Meyers entering the building on January 23, the date Ms. Mendenhall testified that she met with him. Significantly, according to Meyers’ sworn declaration,  January 23  is also the date that he received an email from  Ms. Mendenhall attaching digital copies of the correct signature sheets.  

Ms. Mendenhall, testified that when she creates a packet for applicants seeking to circulate a referendum, she always includes a USB stick containing digital copies of the proper forms and paper copies of the same forms.  Evidence was presented that both sides of the sample signature sheet provided to ROT on January 23 were pre-printed with the statements: “LOCAL ONLY” and Revised 01/12/2023 in the bottom left corner.

It is important to recall that Meyers was involved in the 2019 Daybreak Referendum. The erroneous number printed on the back side of the ROT forms was assigned to the Daybreak Referendum. Those facts, combined with the fact that the signature sheets used by ROT had no revision dates, strongly suggests that the scanned documents Meyers used to create the template for the invalid signature sheets had been used in 2019 and stored on Meyers’ hard drive since that time.

Under questioning by the Developer’s lawyer, Meyers testified that he had read the Secretary of State’s instructions for the completion of signature sheets.  These instructions specifically state that the correct Petition number must be printed on the front and the back side of each signature sheet.

During the hearing, Meyers testified that he had no memory of seeing a “number box” on the back side of the forms he printed for circulation. This testimony contradicts the statement made in paragraph 4 of his March 24, 2024 Declaration which provided:

            “On the back of the petition sheet provided by Town Clerk Mendenhall, Exhibit 1, the space in the lower-right hand corner was filled in with “REF2019-01” and there was no space for the applicant to place its petition serial number.“

 Ms. Cavanaugh testified that the incorrect petition number was overlooked because it was not a blank that could be filled in. 

Neither Meyers nor Cavanaugh offered an explanation as to why they did not contact the Town Clerk to ask her why the form she allegedly provided to them did not leave a space for the correct number to be inserted.

ROT SHOULD DISMISS THIS LITIGATION

At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties were given a deadline of May 31, 2024 to submit their closing arguments.  The judge indicated that he was aware of the time constraints. It is anticipated that the Judge will issue a prompt ruling. 

ROT has not indicated whether it will appeal an adverse ruling.  An appeal by ROT would only serve as additional evidence of its bad faith and result in further injury to the Town’s reputation and finances.  When the adverse ruling is issued, ROT should step down and apologize for punishing the Town and its citizens for its mistake.

would only serve as additional evidence of its bad faith and result in further injury to the Town’s reputation and finances.  When the adverse ruling is issued, ROT should step down and apologize for punishing the Town and its citizens for its mistake.

For another perspective: https://azbex.com/planning-development/fountain-hills-apartment-approval-sparks-lawsuit/