Payson: Our Town, Our Rights, Our Future to Defend

Voters standing in line at polling booths on election day, with one woman in a blue jacket and gray scarf focused at her voting station; booths feature 'VOTE' signs, American flags, and privacy curtains in an indoor polling place.
Increasing Voter Participation in America – Center for American Progress

Payson isn’t just another town in Arizona’s Rim Country. It’s home—a place where families raise children, seniors enjoy retirement with dignity, and hardworking residents build meaningful lives. But communities remain strong only when citizens maintain a voice in how their town grows and changes.

Today, Payson faces an important moment. Growth and development pressures are real. Change will come. The real question is whether that change is guided by the citizens of Payson through transparency and the right to vote on major decisions—or whether those decisions are made without direct public approval.

This Town Runs on Citizens’ Rights

Payson has always been powered by everyday people: small business owners, working families, retirees, and neighbors willing to step up for their community.

One of the key protections citizens fought for is the right to vote on major financial commitments and land-use decisions. In 2018, voters approved Propositions 401 and 402, initiatives designed to ensure public approval for significant uses of town funds or public land.

These measures are not anti-growth. Instead, they aim to promote transparency and accountability so that development benefits the entire community.

Readers who want background on these initiatives can review the organization’s history and explanation of the issues on the Transparent Payson site, including:

When voters approve laws that require public oversight, the intent is straightforward: provide full information and allow citizens to participate in major decisions that affect their money and their land.

A Healthy Payson Includes Every Generation

A thriving town serves all residents:

  • Young people, who need safe and engaging opportunities to grow and thrive.
  • Seniors, who helped build the community and deserve security and respect.
  • Working families, who face rising housing costs and economic pressures.
  • Local businesses, which depend on fair processes and transparent decision-making.

Community success depends on participation. When citizens stay informed and engaged, the entire town benefits.

Great Ideas Grow When Citizens Are Heard

Payson has no shortage of smart, capable people with ideas for improving the community. Progress happens when those voices are welcomed and heard.

A strong civic culture means:

  • Encouraging participation from both longtime residents and newcomers.
  • Supporting local businesses with transparent policies and fair processes.
  • Staying involved—attending meetings, asking questions, and voting.
  • Ensuring major public investments are discussed openly with full information.

These steps help ensure that growth reflects the priorities of the community.

Protecting the Right to Participate

Payson has weathered many challenges over the years—wildfires, floods, economic downturns, and political disagreements. Communities grow stronger when citizens stay engaged and work together.

Participation remains the cornerstone of local democracy. When residents vote, ask questions, and stay informed, they help shape the future of their town.

The Bottom Line

Payson’s future will be shaped by the choices its citizens make today.

A strong community is one where:

  • Young families see opportunity.
  • Seniors feel secure.
  • Businesses can grow.
  • Development serves the entire town.

That future depends on transparency, participation, and the continued protection of citizens’ right to vote on major decisions involving public resources.

As the civic organization Transparent Payson often emphasizes:

Voters’ rights are a cornerstone of democracy.

A Citizen’s Fight, How Transparent Payson Held Power Accountable

In the dusty folds of rural Arizona, a small town became the epicenter of one of the most significant battles for local democracy in the state’s recent history.  Not many people noticed at first.  But that changed.

Transparent Payson was born not in a boardroom, but in living rooms.  Coffee tables, community centers, and kitchen counters became war rooms.  We were a citizens’ group in the truest sense, no deep pockets, no party backing, and no appetite for excuses—just neighbors with questions, and a shared conviction: our votes should matter.

Voter Petitions, May 2023

The Origins

In 2018, a remarkable plan was proposed by the then-Mayor.  Transparent Payson formed in response: an ad hoc group of residents, business owners, retirees, and advocates who believed in the voter.  Initiatives were drafted, petitions were signed, and issues of citizen concern were placed on the ballot.  Payson voters passed Propositions 401 and 402, which limited the Town’s ability to lease or sell significant land assets or approve substantial debt without voter approval.  It was, by design, a check on unchecked power.

Fast forward to 2023.  Without a vote and with little regard for voters’ will, the Town Council repealed both initiatives.  Just like that, your vote was overturned.  Your voice was silenced.  That act triggered what would become a prolonged and spirited battle, not just for those two propositions, but for the integrity of citizen-led governance itself.

Transparent Payson responded.  Advocating in defense of voters’ rights and the Voter Protection Act.  We tried to preserve ballot integrity, and in the principle that government derives its power from the consent of the governed.

The Legal Journey

We took action.  Transparent Payson filed a lawsuit in Gila County to stop the repeal.  We didn’t do it to make headlines.  We did it because nobody else would.
We argued that the Town’s repeal violated the Voter Protection Act: An Arizona safeguard designed to shield passed ballot measures from tampering.  For over a year, we fought in court, in the press, and, as with the initial propositions, in the court of public opinion.
With the guidance of Attorney Timothy LaSota, whose counsel was instrumental, we held the line against an entrenched municipal strategy.  KMOG Radio gave us a voice.  Facebook gave us an audience.  Word of mouth gave us fuel.
Although the trial court ruled against us, we continued to press our case.  The Arizona Court of Appeals then heard the matter in early 2025.
In June, the court upheld the repeal.  A copy of the court’s decision is below.

Thanks again Scott @ Rim Country Guns! March, 2018.

What We Learned (And Proved)

We don’t consider this loss a failure.  We proved that ordinary citizens can have an impact:

 

  • A PAC with less money than the Town spends on coffee can challenge two ill-conceived bonds.
  • A well-timed and well-worded Facebook post can disrupt a municipal campaign.
  • Courtrooms are not the only battlegrounds. Public trust is won—or lost—on the sidewalks and airwaves.

 

We exposed long-term leases signed in the dark.  We challenged procedures that sidestepped the ballot box.  We demonstrated to the community that transparency is a fight worth fighting: Even when the odds are long.

The Legacy

We believe our work made Payson better.  Town decisions are under more scrutiny.  Voter education is rising.  People are asking the right questions.

 

  • Did we pass two voter-approved initiatives?  Yes.
  • Did we overturn the repeal?  No.  But we exposed it.
  • Did we restore 401 and 402? No.  But we reminded the Town that they answer to the voters.

 

The Thanks

  • To every donor, volunteer, and supporter: You made the Transparent Payson movement real.  You took yard signs, wrote letters, attended council meetings, and shared posts.  Transparent Payson was never just a committee—it was a community.
    To the media outlets that welcomed us, KMOG, KPJM, and the groups that supported us, particularly the Payson Tea Party – thank you.
  • To Attorney Tim LaSota, your integrity and counsel gave us hope when we needed it most.  Thank you for sticking with us, and for lending us your name, your skill, and your time.
  • To the people of Payson, we stood together, and we leave with heads high.
  • The PAC is closing, but the movement continues.

Use our archives.  Follow our timelines.  Take inspiration from what we, at Transparent Payson, achieved with so little.

We hope TransparentPayson.org remains a space where truth has a place—and voters have a voice.

—The Transparent Payson Committee

 

State of Arizona, Court of Appeals

CV20240195 Opinion

  • Recent Updates

    • Voters standing in line at polling booths on election day, with one woman in a blue jacket and gray scarf focused at her voting station; booths feature 'VOTE' signs, American flags, and privacy curtains in an indoor polling place.Payson: Our Town, Our Rights, Our Future to Defend
      Payson isn’t just another town in Arizona’s Rim Country. It’s home—a place where families raise children, seniors enjoy retirement with dignity, and hardworking residents build meaningful lives. But communities remain strong only when citizens […]
    • A Citizen’s Fight, How Transparent Payson Held Power Accountable
      In the dusty folds of rural Arizona, a small town became the epicenter of one of the most significant battles for local democracy in the state’s recent history.  Not many people noticed at first.  But that changed. Transparent Payson was born […]
    • Gratitude and ResolveWith Gratitude and Resolve
      To the citizens of Payson and all those who stood with us There comes a moment in every civic movement when the dust settles.  When the courtrooms go quiet, the signs are taken down, and the social feeds slow.  That moment is here for Transparent […]
    • Payson Town Legal Cow PuckeryTown Legal Platitudes and Cow Puckery
      It must be a something; it can’t be a nothing. We apologize for this very long post.  The process is nine months in the making.  The ongoing saga of a records request we have previously touched on in What is the Town of Payson Hiding and […]
    • Payson RoundupAn Open Letter to the Payson Roundup and Council Member Nossek
      The Roundup published an opinion by Council Member Nossek that took exception to voters’ rights.  Mr. Nossek targeted his address at me.  The Nossek opinion was removed from publication.  The opinion was on the heels of an article by Mr. Aleshire […]
    • Payson Town Legal, Same Old Same
      A funny thing happened when Mr. Jon Paladini separated from the Town of Payson.  We researched new Town Legal, Ms. Christina Werther, to see if there would be a change in approach regarding citizens’ rights.  Based on her position in a […]

  • A Healthy Government Does NOT Suppress Free Speech.

     

     

    Click the picture of silence above to learn more.

  • Contact Us.

     

    If you have questions or comments, please feel free to contact us. Stay informed on upcoming meetings, events, and progress. No worries; we never sell or distribute your information. We send occasional emails, always on point. Please click the icon below to send us an email.

    Email Us.

    Thank you!

  • Learn why these issues are essential.

     

     

    Act Up!

    Click the "ACT UP" picture to learn more.

  • A History of Transparent Payson

    Where it started, and where we are now. 

     A history of Transparent Payson

    We have been involved in voters' rights since 2018.

     

      Click the History picture above to learn more.

  • Join us on Facebook:

    Facebook Logo

    Click the Fcebook icon. 

With Gratitude and Resolve

To the citizens of Payson and all those who stood with us

There comes a moment in every civic movement when the dust settles.  When the courtrooms go quiet, the signs are taken down, and the social feeds slow.  That moment is here for Transparent Payson.  But make no mistake: the echo of our efforts will continue for years to come.

Serving as Chairman of Transparent Payson has been a singular honor.  The role of Chairman wasn’t a role I took lightly; it was a mission.  One rooted in the belief that people, not institutions, should shape the direction of their communities.

Why We Fought

This committee was never about partisanship.  It was about principle.  That’s why we organized.

We saw something sacred —the citizens’ will —and ultimately, direct democracy, casually brushed aside by municipal decisions.  Our ballot measures, born of community intent and backed by real votes, were repealed without the input of voters.  We couldn’t let that stand.

That’s why we marched forward into political and legal territory where few local committees dare venture.  And that’s why, even in defeat, we hold our heads high.

Thank you for your support
Thank you for being so supportive!

Lessons in Civic Life

  • We learned that standing up isn’t easy, but it is necessary.
  • We learned that court outcomes are binary, but public courage is not.
  • We learned that one thoughtful citizen with a flyer, a laptop, or a question at a council meeting is more potent than any backroom deal.
  • We learned that success isn’t always measured in court rulings; it’s measured in awareness, conversation, and vigilance.

As Winston Churchill once said:

Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.

What Comes Next

The Political Action Committee (PAC) will disband.  We are hopeful that our digital presence, including our website, Facebook platform, and archives, will remain.

We envision TransparentPayson.org as a repository for future watchdogs, civic leaders, and concerned citizens.  It will continue to house timelines, legal filings, public records, and commentary.  We encourage you to use it.  Share it.  Learn from it.

We hope others will build on what we started.  We may be stepping away, but our tools are yours now.

A Personal Thank You

  • To every neighbor who asked a difficult question.
  • To every donor who gave when others shrugged.
  • To every group that gave us a platform to speak.
  • To every media outlet that graciously hosted us.
  • To every volunteer who obtained signatures, posted online, or was part of the process in any fashion.
  • To every voter who said, “Wait a minute . .  .  this doesn’t seem right.”

You were Transparent Payson.  I was just lucky enough to chair it.

To Attorney Tim LaSota—your name belongs beside this movement.  We will forever be grateful for your counsel, clarity, and class.

As we turn this page, I do so with pride, humility, and hope.  We may be closing our formal chapter, but our story is far from over.  Let this not be the end, but a beginning for a more informed, empowered, and resilient Payson.

With most profound appreciation and full resolve,

 

Jeffrey S. Aal, Chairman, Transparent Payson, 2025.

 

  • Recent Updates

    • Voters standing in line at polling booths on election day, with one woman in a blue jacket and gray scarf focused at her voting station; booths feature 'VOTE' signs, American flags, and privacy curtains in an indoor polling place.Payson: Our Town, Our Rights, Our Future to Defend
      Payson isn’t just another town in Arizona’s Rim Country. It’s home—a place where families raise children, seniors enjoy retirement with dignity, and hardworking residents build meaningful lives. But communities remain strong only when citizens […]
    • A Citizen’s Fight, How Transparent Payson Held Power Accountable
      In the dusty folds of rural Arizona, a small town became the epicenter of one of the most significant battles for local democracy in the state’s recent history.  Not many people noticed at first.  But that changed. Transparent Payson was born […]
    • Gratitude and ResolveWith Gratitude and Resolve
      To the citizens of Payson and all those who stood with us There comes a moment in every civic movement when the dust settles.  When the courtrooms go quiet, the signs are taken down, and the social feeds slow.  That moment is here for Transparent […]
    • Payson Town Legal Cow PuckeryTown Legal Platitudes and Cow Puckery
      It must be a something; it can’t be a nothing. We apologize for this very long post.  The process is nine months in the making.  The ongoing saga of a records request we have previously touched on in What is the Town of Payson Hiding and […]
    • Payson RoundupAn Open Letter to the Payson Roundup and Council Member Nossek
      The Roundup published an opinion by Council Member Nossek that took exception to voters’ rights.  Mr. Nossek targeted his address at me.  The Nossek opinion was removed from publication.  The opinion was on the heels of an article by Mr. Aleshire […]
    • Payson Town Legal, Same Old Same
      A funny thing happened when Mr. Jon Paladini separated from the Town of Payson.  We researched new Town Legal, Ms. Christina Werther, to see if there would be a change in approach regarding citizens’ rights.  Based on her position in a […]

  • A Healthy Government Does NOT Suppress Free Speech.

     

     

    Click the picture of silence above to learn more.

  • Contact Us.

     

    If you have questions or comments, please feel free to contact us. Stay informed on upcoming meetings, events, and progress. No worries; we never sell or distribute your information. We send occasional emails, always on point. Please click the icon below to send us an email.

    Email Us.

    Thank you!

  • Learn why these issues are essential.

     

     

    Act Up!

    Click the "ACT UP" picture to learn more.

  • A History of Transparent Payson

    Where it started, and where we are now. 

     A history of Transparent Payson

    We have been involved in voters' rights since 2018.

     

      Click the History picture above to learn more.

  • Join us on Facebook:

    Facebook Logo

    Click the Fcebook icon. 

Town Legal Platitudes and Cow Puckery

It must be a something; it can’t be a nothing.

We apologize for this very long post.  The process is nine months in the making.  The ongoing saga of a records request we have previously touched on in What is the Town of Payson Hiding and Payson has nuclear launch codes.  Some Cliff notes:

  • Records request.
  • Delay, stall, and excuses.
  • An Ombudsman intervention.
  • Haphazardly produce some documents.
  • Now referred to Counsel with authorization to file a suit if necessary.
  • The new Town Council gets to address cleaning up the prior Council’s mess.

Town of Payson Town Legal Cow PuckeryCitizens are so accustomed to platitudes from the Town that they are ineffectual.  They are dull and insipid.  In no way are they thoughtful or engaging.  To paraphrase former Mayor Murphey, they are “cow puckery.” They remain a staple of corporate America often spoken by media consultants, politicians, and attorneys.  New Town Legal, Ms. Christina Werther, excels in the cow puckery.

The Town sincerely desires to work with you …

The Town is committed to transparency …

I recognize your frustration about this process …

Right after the platitude comes a big BUT.  Experience teaches us all that platitudes and cow puckery are routine in life.  We learn the skill early in life.  The formula is very simple.  (Platitude) ^BUT (Statement.) For example:

  • I wanted to do well in class and do my homework, BUT the dog ate it.
  • We appreciate you flying with us, BUT our aircraft requires unscheduled maintenance.
  • Better late than never; I would have been on time, BUT traffic was horrible.

A mnemonic to help remember the formula (P)^B(S) is “Pure B.S.”

A records request was filed with the Town on March 7th.  The genesis of the request was a review of emails from the Town Staff that were, shall we say, misguided.  The comments were not flattering to various individuals and groups.  We wanted to see the extent of the comments.  The request was particular as allowed under Arizona law.  That law allows “(T)hat if a public entity maintains a public record in an electronic format, then the electronic version, including any embedded metadata, is subject to disclosure under our public records laws.” Lake v. City of Phoenix, 222 Ariz. 547, 548 (Ariz. 2009).  The request:

Please produce the records in the native electronic format, including any attachments.  The formats requested include MSG, PST, EDB, OST, EML, and MBOX, including any embedded metadata.  A Dropbox link can be provided if requested to transfer data.  Otherwise, a USB drive can also be provided.

As the nine-month mark approached, Town Legal became directly involved after the Ombudsman Office‘s intervention.

Here, your request was for native files and the Town recognizes that you are not only asking for the content of the emails but you are seeking the metadata.  That was not clear to the Town in your original request* and I apologize for that confusion and the delay this has caused in producing the records in the format you requested.

*Emaphsis added.

Really?  Not clear?  Exactly how much more straightforward does it need to be?  Did you see the formula?  (P)^B(S).  Here you go: (I apologize for that confusion and the delay) ^B (That was not clear to the Town in your original request).  The beauty of the formula is that it can be expressed (P)^B(S) or (S)^B(P). To use it if or when you need to, remember the mnemonic, “Pure B.S.”

When we mentioned the request, we received threats of civil litigation if the request was pursued.  At the end of nine months, and after every effort made by the Town not to comply with the request, we suspect the information will be very compelling.

The idea that the documents cannot be released in their original format is curious because the prior Town Clerk, Ms. Sylvia Smith, released them quickly and efficiently.  We have native-format records from the prior Town Manager, Mr. Garret, and the prior Mayor, Mr. Swartwood.  At no time did the request take nine months.  Town Legal, Mr. Figueroa, noted that one privileged document was released; it was promptly returned, and no copy was maintained.

The current timeline for the request is:

  • On March 7th, the Town stated: “Your records request has been received in the Town Clerks (sic) Office.  We will notify you as soon as the records are ready.”
  • On April 30th, the Town stated: “We are still working on your records request.  Your patience is appreciated as there are hundreds of emails to review.  I will have the files to you as soon as I can.”
  • On May 31st, the Town stated: “Staff is still working on your records request.”
  • On June 17th, the Town stated: “Your records request is currently in legal review for necessary or required redactions.”
  • On July 31st, the Town stated: “The documents for your request are still being reviewed.”
  • On August 1st, a complaint was filed with the Arizona Ombudsman-Citizens’ Aide office.
  • On September 9th, the Town requested that the request be limited so that the delay could be avoided. The suggestion to limit the request appears to imply that, but for the request, the request would have been fulfilled: circular at best.
    • “Please be advised that due to the volume of your request (over 4,000 files to review), the documents you seek may not be available for 90 days or more.  If you were to choose to limit your request, responsive documents might be available sooner.”
  • On November 7th, the Town stated:
    • “The Town Attorney has approved a rolling release of the documents responsive to your records request regarding Hannah Lusk’s emails.  I anticipate sending you the first batch of documents next week.”
  • On November 11th, the Town recanted the “rolling release” to a “limited release.” The Town stated:
    • “The Town Attorney approved a limited release of documents now which I misunderstood to be a rolling release.”
  • On November 11th, two batches of PDF documents were released.
  • On December 6th, more .pdf documents were released, and initial records (very limited, less than 5%) that actually complied with the request were released.

Do not let the Town’s concern over the number of files fool you. Email retention services offer a robust spectrum of search and sort features. The actual initial query is a few keystrokes. Those retention service applications are very beneficial daily in response to document requests. The search and sort features typically offer flags or exclusion functions.

File data from random .pdf documents suggests that no .pdf documents were created before August.  Documents were generated after the Ombudsman’s Office intervened.  The Town’s statements before August 1st are, at best, misleading.

On November 12th, Ms. Bailey set a timeline for the Town:

(T)he others are still being reviewed but are expected to be complete by the end of the month.

The documents provided to date have been provided in .pdf format.  This method and the redactions discussed below are time and labor-intensive and do not conform to the records request.  Some documents are redacted, while others are not.  There is no rhyme or reason to the redactions.  Ten examples of documents provided by the Town of Payson reflect the following:

  1. A letter as a separate attachment from Pierce Coleman that has been redacted regarding the recipient: There is no apparent basis to redact this document.  We cannot locate the corresponding email.  While outside of our realm, we would anticipate that if the email is privileged, likewise, the attachment(s) would be.
  2. A letter as a separate attachment to M***** H******* from Pierce Coleman.  There is no redaction.  The lack of redaction indicates that the Town is selectively redacting documents.  Functionally, the two letters on Pierce Coleman’s letterhead are identical.  We cannot locate the corresponding email.
  3. A Facebook post as a separate attachment that has been redacted. We are unaware of any basis for redacting social media posts, and we cannot locate the corresponding email.
  4. A Facebook post as a separate attachment that has been redacted.  We cannot locate the corresponding email.
  5. A Facebook post as a separate attachment that has been redacted.  We cannot locate the corresponding email.
  6. This document is perhaps our favorite. The document is a letter from Jeffrey Aal (Transparent Payson Chairman) to Ms. Tracy Bailey, the Town Clerk, dated December 21st, 2023.  The letter is a separate attachment.   The Town has gone to great lengths to redact personal information except the name.  We know the Chairperson’s address, email, and telephone number.  We cannot locate the corresponding email.
  7. A redacted email regarding payment to the Town of Payson.  To our knowledge, the Town’s financial transactions, including the source of funds, are not subject to any privilege.
  8. An email reflecting the redaction of owner’s names on property rolls.  The street address is not redacted.  An online search via the Recorder’s or Assessor’s Office will provide the owner’s name.  Other documents do not redact names in their entirety.
  9. An email identifying E***** C*****.  There are no redactions.  We are perplexed why some names in emails and documents would be redacted, and others are not.
  10. An email requesting information from S****** D*****.  There are no redactions.  We remain perplexed.

The Town of Payson has gone to great lengths, and likely at a significant cost, to circumvent and stall the document request. Ultimately, the Town of Payson Clerk, Ms. Bailey, under the counsel of Pierce Coleman, is responsible for the misguided direction of the response.

The first batch of native-format documents, 215, was received on Friday, December 6th.  The approach, as with .pdf redactions and production, is again haphazard.  The disbursement of the 215 files covers over a year.  The time distribution below makes no sense.

Payson Town Legal Cow Puckery
This time distribution reflects Payson Town Legal’s platitudes and cow puckery.

The Town has provided no clarification of the haphazard method of redactions.  There was no clarification on “rolling” versus “limited” as approved by then Town Legal, Mr. Paladini.  “Native format” is not vague or ambiguous in this context.  The original request stated, “(I)n the native electronic format, including any attachments.”  The Town has stated that 200 documents per week will be produced.  The suggested proposal will take us to mid-April 2025.  Thirteen-plus months to produce records?  Pure Payson platitudes and cow puckery.  It must be something.

Assuming a proposed resolution of 200 files per week, the total time required to fulfill the request is estimated at twenty weeks or 140 days.  Had the Town of Payson contacted us within thirty days after the request and committed to that timeline, the request would have been fulfilled in 170 days, or roughly the end of August.  The Town of Payson did not choose that course.  Had the documents been under legal review from June 17th, as stated, the request would have been fulfilled by November 4th.  The production format would have been resolved if the Town produced a singular .pdf document before November 11th.  By choice, none of that occurred.  We have no credence in any assertion that the Town is committed to transparency or “sincerely desires to work with us.”  (P)^B(S).

We advised the Town that we would exercise all avenues of recourse, including those available under A.R.S. § 39-121.02.  That allows filing suit against the Town to compel the document request.  The Town stated its course of action; we stated our course of action.  Those paths have now intersected.

That brings us to today.  It is time to stop Town Legal’s platitudes and cow puckery, a.k.a. (P)^B(S).

The file has been referred to Counsel to compel the records.  We hope full production of the records can be accomplished outside of litigation.  If not, well, OK.

 

  • Recent Updates

    • Voters standing in line at polling booths on election day, with one woman in a blue jacket and gray scarf focused at her voting station; booths feature 'VOTE' signs, American flags, and privacy curtains in an indoor polling place.Payson: Our Town, Our Rights, Our Future to Defend
      Payson isn’t just another town in Arizona’s Rim Country. It’s home—a place where families raise children, seniors enjoy retirement with dignity, and hardworking residents build meaningful lives. But communities remain strong only when citizens […]
    • A Citizen’s Fight, How Transparent Payson Held Power Accountable
      In the dusty folds of rural Arizona, a small town became the epicenter of one of the most significant battles for local democracy in the state’s recent history.  Not many people noticed at first.  But that changed. Transparent Payson was born […]
    • Gratitude and ResolveWith Gratitude and Resolve
      To the citizens of Payson and all those who stood with us There comes a moment in every civic movement when the dust settles.  When the courtrooms go quiet, the signs are taken down, and the social feeds slow.  That moment is here for Transparent […]
    • Payson Town Legal Cow PuckeryTown Legal Platitudes and Cow Puckery
      It must be a something; it can’t be a nothing. We apologize for this very long post.  The process is nine months in the making.  The ongoing saga of a records request we have previously touched on in What is the Town of Payson Hiding and […]
    • Payson RoundupAn Open Letter to the Payson Roundup and Council Member Nossek
      The Roundup published an opinion by Council Member Nossek that took exception to voters’ rights.  Mr. Nossek targeted his address at me.  The Nossek opinion was removed from publication.  The opinion was on the heels of an article by Mr. Aleshire […]
    • Payson Town Legal, Same Old Same
      A funny thing happened when Mr. Jon Paladini separated from the Town of Payson.  We researched new Town Legal, Ms. Christina Werther, to see if there would be a change in approach regarding citizens’ rights.  Based on her position in a […]

  • A Healthy Government Does NOT Suppress Free Speech.

     

     

    Click the picture of silence above to learn more.

  • Contact Us.

     

    If you have questions or comments, please feel free to contact us. Stay informed on upcoming meetings, events, and progress. No worries; we never sell or distribute your information. We send occasional emails, always on point. Please click the icon below to send us an email.

    Email Us.

    Thank you!

  • Learn why these issues are essential.

     

     

    Act Up!

    Click the "ACT UP" picture to learn more.

  • A History of Transparent Payson

    Where it started, and where we are now. 

     A history of Transparent Payson

    We have been involved in voters' rights since 2018.

     

      Click the History picture above to learn more.

  • Join us on Facebook:

    Facebook Logo

    Click the Fcebook icon. 

An Open Letter to the Payson Roundup and Council Member Nossek

The Roundup published an opinion by Council Member Nossek that took exception to voters’ rights.  Mr. Nossek targeted his address at me.  The Nossek opinion was removed from publication.  The opinion was on the heels of an article by Mr. Aleshire that attempts to lay the dysfunction of Payson politics at my feet.  While flattering, both are incorrect.  Since 2017, I have had the privilege of being the Chair/Spokesperson for Transparent Payson.  They are not addressing me; they are addressing the resolute volunteers, the patrons, and, ultimately, the sixty percent of the electorate who voted to pass Propositions 401 and 402.

The basic argument presented is one of representative democracy and that Transparent Payson advocates for a complete direct democracy.  That is incorrect.  Day to day operation of government must occur from representative democracy.  The government is too complex to attempt any other method.

“Representative” does not mean carte blanche, nor does it give unlimited authority.  When politicians state that representative democracy is superior, they state that voters are flawed.  That statement does not support the tyranny of the majority, which both the State and Federal Constitution limit.  Winning an election conveys no special knowledge.  Representative democracy does not remove the voter or taxpayer from the local equation.  Stating that elected representatives have a greater knowledge or comprehension is condescending to every citizen.  Citizens can decide on complex issues.

The Town of Payson has no issue with direct democracy when it works in their favor.  An example is the Green Valley Park general obligation bond.  As a reminder, the Town had a plan for an off-year general obligation bond in 2025 for additional funding.  The Town had the approval of the General Plan on the last ballot.  The recent school bond override?  While not a Town matter, nobody had an issue with direct democracy when it worked in their favor.  Politicians fear direct democracy when the outcome may not reconcile with their desires.  Simply glossing over by saying “elected representative” or “representative democracy” is a disservice to history and the importance of the individual voter.

Representatives are only as good as the information they receive.  Locally, that information comes from Town Staff, currently funneled exclusively through the Town Manager position as reflected on the organizational flow chart.  The biggest problem with a representative democracy?  Look at the corruption and bloat in Washington.  Need I say more?

To support criticism of limited direct democracy, Mr. Nossek and others discuss the country’s founding.  Discussing the Federal Government system with only representative democracy versus a local government that allows for direct democracy is like comparing a Chevrolet to a Ford.  Both have similar components, but they are different vehicles.  If you are attempting to repair a Chevrolet, you do not head to the Ford parts counter.  It would be helpful if Mr. Nossek understood the role of direct democracy at the local level and refrained from comparing it to a dissimilar vehicle.  Doing so requires an understanding of history.

Arizona’s original proposed Constitution was written in 1910.  When Arizona came into statehood, it was during a “progressive period.” Initiatives, referendums, and recalls came about to fight undue influence from corporations such as railroads and others.  Twenty-six states have a form of direct democracy.  There are unique elements of the Arizona Constitution and the constitutions of western states in general.

Examples of the changes from early state constitutions, such as Maryland’s and others, to Arizona’s, are a strong emphasis on individual rights brought about by the Civil War.  Statehood required revisions to the 1910 proposal as it was “too progressive.” Arizona’s Constitution allows for direct democracy by initiative, referendum, and recall.  After statehood in 1912, one of Arizona’s first orders of business was women’s suffrage, passed and adopted into the Arizona Constitution the same year Arizona became admitted to the Union.  Arizona granted suffrage eight years before enacted at the Federal level in 1920.  That suffrage effort was a result of direct democracy.

Transparent Payson has never been against a community/aquatic center or any other project.  Here is the caveat.  Put the horse before the cart.  That is, ask the citizens for the funding FIRST.  Put it to a vote.  If fifty percent plus one vote says additional taxes for any significant improvement are a promising idea, build it.  Rules in a democracy dictate that Representatives do not forget or forgo the role of the governed and the taxed.  If funding or taxing requires an emergency ordinance to preclude citizens from exercising their rights, it may not be in the citizens’ best interest.  Payson’s tax rate and debt should be placed before the electorate.  That is not a radical idea.

Transparent Payson is not now, nor will it ever be, willing to silence voters’ voices with cries of “representative democracy” when representatives fail to represent the governed.

It remains our MONEY, our LAND, and our VOTE.

Sincerely,

 

Jeffrey S. Aal

Chairperson, Transparent Payson

Info@TranspaprentPayson.org

www.TransparpentPayson.org

Payson Town Legal, Same Old Same

A funny thing happened when Mr. Jon Paladini separated from the Town of Payson.  We researched new Town Legal, Ms. Christina Werther, to see if there would be a change in approach regarding citizens’ rights.  Based on her position in a Prescott Valley voter matter, it does not look like there will be.  Citizens’ rights will be placed second to the Town’s desires.  We thanked the people who did the heavy lifting in Prescott Valley, and they provided us with additional information on Mr. Paladini.  Turns out he may not have been the best choice to represent Payson.  You can learn more about that concern by visiting Arizonans for Promoting Integrity.  They discussed the relationship with Prescott, Pierce Coleman, and Mr. Paladini.  The post, City Needs to Sever Ties, delves into issues of domestic violence and contains a disturbing 911 call.

Payson Town Legal
We link to a post that includes a domestic violence 911 audio. If you need help locally, please call Time Out Domestic Violence Shelter at (928) 472-8007.

We discussed Mr. Paladini’s prior advice to the Town in our post-Paper Tigers and Bad Advice.  As found in the Town Council minutes, Mr. Paladini, during the August 21st Council meeting, advised:

Mr. Paladini responded that Towns did not go out to bid for professional services and State Law prohibited* asking for quotes from certain professionals such as Engineers.  Mr. Hamil explained bonds were on a negotiated basis by Council selection and not normally put out to bid.

*Emphasis added.

That State Law prohibits asking for bids from professionals came as a shocking statement to many.  Mr. Grant Hamil, Managing Director of Stifel Public Finance, echoed Mr. Paladini’s sentiment.  Possibly, they did not read the agreement from 2021 with Stifel.  Remarkable as Mr. Hamil was a signatory.  That agreement read in part as follows:

Furthermore, this engagement letter does not restrict Issuer from entering into the Issue with any other underwriters* or placement agents or selecting an underwriting syndicate that does not include Stifel.

*Emphasis added.

As always, the entire document is found below in .pdf format.

The discussion on placing the bond for bid was circumvented.  The misstatements by Mr. Paladini were never challenged.  The specific question of fees for the bond was never addressed, only the “competitive rates” during issuance.  How did the agreement on bond placement rates/costs come about?  The Town of Payson signed the engagement letter in May 2021 via Hedi Gregory, the Town’s Finance Manager. The fees were based on a fee schedule from the Strategic Alliance for Volume Expenditures Cooperative (S.A.V.E.). Each S.A.V.E. agency member includes language in their contracts, allowing other member agencies to purchase services under the contracting agency’s exact pricing, terms, and conditions.  In this case, the pricing was based on a contract from a Yuma School District bond issuance (Crane ESD Request for Proposals #C-005­1718). The “price list” terms reflect increasing costs for various terms and other issuance provisions.  The engagement letter states:

It is Issuer’s intent that Stifel serve as an underwriter or placement agent for the Issue, subject to satisfying applicable procurement laws or policies, formal approval by the Town Council of Issuer, finalizing the structure of the Issue and executing a bond purchase agreement or placement agent agreement, as applicable.

It is our understanding that you have the authority to bind the Issuer by contract* with us, and that you are not a party to any conflict of interest relating to the subject transaction.

*Emphasis added.

How does a Town Finance Manager enter into a contract worth $1,000,000.00 in fees without approval from the Council?  We also note that Stifel was open that their advice may not be strictly motivated by an altruistic goal of service to the community.  They clarify that they have a financial motivation, and the advice may will have a built in conflict of interest.  Money talks.

While this form of compensation is customary in the municipal securities market, it presents a conflict of interest* since the underwriters may have an incentive to recommend to the Issuer a transaction that is unnecessary or to recommend that the size of the transaction be larger than is necessary.*

*Emphasis added.

We don’t recall anyone on the Town Council acknowledging that Stifel’s recommendations may not be in the Town’s best interest.  The advice given by Special Counsel about repealing 401 and 402 appears to be worth exactly what the Town paid for it—nothing. (See below regarding Greenberg Traurig )

Consistent with open meetings, bond issuance discussions and decisions about terms had to be made, and should have been made, in a public forum.  For example, at some point, a decision was made on the term or length of the bond.  A decision on the dollar amount had to be made.  Stifel presented various value options from $50m to $70m.  Who decided on the value and the term?  The CIPCAC had no authority to do so; they could only recommend a course of action.  Nothing in the CIPCAC report limits fees, rates, or terms.  The only notice of the terms and other elements was provided when the meeting of August 21st was announced.  The presentation of August 21st would suggest that the Town’s financial business was decided in an Executive Session or non-posted meeting, or terms may have been negotiated without the approval of the Town Council.  If so, somebody overstepped.  We remain dumbfounded that the Town negotiated $112m in debt without a single public meeting or mentioning any discussions on any agenda.

Those discussions and decisions are the purview of the Council, not Town Legal.   Mr. Hamil indicated the deal was negotiated with Town Legal, Mr. Paladini.  Mr. Hamil explained that bonds were negotiated by Council selection and are generally not put out to bid.  Of course, he said that; look at the self-disclosed conflict of interest statement above.  Messrs. Paladini’s and Hamil’s remarks are in the video below.

 

During the bond ordinance hearing, Mr. Hamil noted that Mr. Zach Sekas of Greenberg Traurig was Special Counsel.  “Special Counsel” is the bond attorney who advised the Town to repeal 401 and 402 during CIPCAC meetings.  We were curious how much that advice cost.  When we asked, we found out:

The Town has not (sic) documents responsive to your request regarding Greenberg Traurig, LLP contract(s) for service, including proposed fee schedules if any, professional service agreement(s), memorandum of understanding, letters of intent/engagement, or purchase orders between the Town of Payson and Greenberg Traurig, LLP for the period 01/01/2021 to date.  Additionally, I did confirm there were no invoice(s) for service(s) provided by Greenberg Traurig, LLP for the period 01/01/2021 to date.

Then Town Legal, Mr. Paladini, approved an ordinance/bond purchase agreement with no values listed in the attachments.  Mr. Paladini gave Stifel a blank check for fees and the Town Council with political cover to avoid the tough questions.

The fee schedule from the agreement of 2021, assuming a $70m placement, works as follows:

Base Fee per $1,000.00Value $70,000,000.00 Twenty-Five Years, “AA-” Rating
Underwriting w/ Financial Advisor$1.80$126,000.00
Financial Advisor$4.75$332,500.00
Term Surcharge – $0.30 per year above ten years.$1.50$105,000.00
AA- Rating$2.50$175,000.00
Total Fees:$738,500.00

The values above are similar to those reflected in a CIPCAC meeting presentation.  But wait, there is more.  Unknown/Undisclosed costs:

Payson Town Legal

During the August 21st, 2024, CIPCAC meeting, the presentation reflected the anticipated additional costs:

 

The anticipated additional costs were $254,165.45 on a sixty million dollar/par issue.  How did the Town get to seventy million?  The “All-in True Interest Cost at sixty-nine million is 4.24%.”  If they knew that, what was the emergency of rising interest rates?

The total fees for the placement would have been $992,665.45 +/-. Mr. Paladini assured us there was no need to put that proposal out to bid, and it was “illegal” to do so.

The bond was never issued.  Are there costs? The rate sheet allows for charges in unusual circumstances.  We wonder if the Town will be presented with any charges.

Payson Town LegalThere are many unresolved questions:

  • How in the world can Town Legal approve an ordinance that has no actual cost shown?
  • How can a Town Finance Manager with limited authority enter into an agreement valued at around $1,000,000.00?
  • How were the decisions made on bond terms of length or amount?
  • Will the Town be facing costs for the items listed above?
  • Will the Town face a negotiated “fair amount” for “circumstances requiring a significantly higher degree of effort?”

We have no answers for any of that.  The Ombudsman Office is investigating a possible open meeting violation.  We will see what, if anything, comes from the investigation.

Payson Town LegalMr. Paladini had no issues “misstating” the truth.  Likewise, Mr. Paladini had no issue circumventing a records request or failing to adhere to the law in that records request.  Mr. Paladini had no qualms about sending threatening letters to citizens about protected speech.  There were no misgivings about approving a lease for property the Town did not control.  Mr. Paladini has no reservations about using the emergency clause, ultimately drawing a suit from the Goldwater Institute.  We are uncertain if Pierce Coleman, as a firm, has concerns over those actions.  We hope that scruples and conscience are a core philosophy of the firm.

We hoped the new Payson Town Legal, Ms. Werther, would be a better fit.  Like Mr. Paladini, she is a partner at Pierce Coleman.  From our interactions, our hope for change is diminishing.  We are confident Ms. Werther has platitudes and excuses down pat.  We will detail those interactions soon.

For now, it appears the same old thinking will provide Payson with the same old results.

 

Letter of Engagement with Stifel

Stifel and Town of Payson Letter of Engagement2

 

Fees from Letter of Engagement – Crane ESD Request for Proposals #C-005­1718

Stifel fees per save 5505_COST PROPOSAL Crane (YEPA SAVE) RFP1-18 10 am) cg 5-1-18(1)

 

Records Request Response of Greenberg Traurig, LLP

110724 Records Request for Greenburg

 

  • Recent Updates

    • Voters standing in line at polling booths on election day, with one woman in a blue jacket and gray scarf focused at her voting station; booths feature 'VOTE' signs, American flags, and privacy curtains in an indoor polling place.Payson: Our Town, Our Rights, Our Future to Defend
      Payson isn’t just another town in Arizona’s Rim Country. It’s home—a place where families raise children, seniors enjoy retirement with dignity, and hardworking residents build meaningful lives. But communities remain strong only when citizens […]
    • A Citizen’s Fight, How Transparent Payson Held Power Accountable
      In the dusty folds of rural Arizona, a small town became the epicenter of one of the most significant battles for local democracy in the state’s recent history.  Not many people noticed at first.  But that changed. Transparent Payson was born […]
    • Gratitude and ResolveWith Gratitude and Resolve
      To the citizens of Payson and all those who stood with us There comes a moment in every civic movement when the dust settles.  When the courtrooms go quiet, the signs are taken down, and the social feeds slow.  That moment is here for Transparent […]
    • Payson Town Legal Cow PuckeryTown Legal Platitudes and Cow Puckery
      It must be a something; it can’t be a nothing. We apologize for this very long post.  The process is nine months in the making.  The ongoing saga of a records request we have previously touched on in What is the Town of Payson Hiding and […]
    • Payson RoundupAn Open Letter to the Payson Roundup and Council Member Nossek
      The Roundup published an opinion by Council Member Nossek that took exception to voters’ rights.  Mr. Nossek targeted his address at me.  The Nossek opinion was removed from publication.  The opinion was on the heels of an article by Mr. Aleshire […]
    • Payson Town Legal, Same Old Same
      A funny thing happened when Mr. Jon Paladini separated from the Town of Payson.  We researched new Town Legal, Ms. Christina Werther, to see if there would be a change in approach regarding citizens’ rights.  Based on her position in a […]

  • A Healthy Government Does NOT Suppress Free Speech.

     

     

    Click the picture of silence above to learn more.

  • Contact Us.

     

    If you have questions or comments, please feel free to contact us. Stay informed on upcoming meetings, events, and progress. No worries; we never sell or distribute your information. We send occasional emails, always on point. Please click the icon below to send us an email.

    Email Us.

    Thank you!

  • Learn why these issues are essential.

     

     

    Act Up!

    Click the "ACT UP" picture to learn more.

  • A History of Transparent Payson

    Where it started, and where we are now. 

     A history of Transparent Payson

    We have been involved in voters' rights since 2018.

     

      Click the History picture above to learn more.

  • Join us on Facebook:

    Facebook Logo

    Click the Fcebook icon. 

Representative Democracy – Don’t let them fool you.

The Payson Roundup recently had an article discussing a Tea Party meeting where Transparent Payson was a guest.  The Roundup gives Transparent Payson too much credit.  “You can explain a lot about Payson town politics at the moment by listening to Aal’s critique.”  No critique would be necessary if the Town listened to voters’ will.

The basic pushback on voter involvement, or direct democracy, is that we live in a representative democracy.  We do, but not exclusively.  Some Council Members will state, “We were elected to do XYZ” to justify their actions and hide behind “representative democracy.”  The idea is that voters are not savvy enough to address concerns.  That is not true; ordinary citizens can decide complex issues.

There are challenges in every system.  Representatives are only as good as the information they receive.  Locally, that comes from Town Staff, currently funneled exclusively through the Town Manager as reflected on the organizational flow chart.  The biggest problem with a representative democracy?  Look at the corruption in Washington.  Need we say more?

First, from the Roundup article:

“Aal’s core argument is that the town has ignored the voters, manipulated the figures and failed to follow through on its promises.”

The article also provided direct quotes.

“There’s nothing inherently wrong with infrastructure,” said Aal.  “But there’s something inherently wrong when the process negates the people who are going to pay for it.  We’re taxpayers.  So when you start telling the taxpayers how you’re going to spend their money and ignore their input completely… It’s not the actual project.  It’s not the actual numbers.  It’s the way they go about it.”

You can read the full Roundup Article on their website.

Transparent Payson has never been against a community/aquatic center.

Here is the caveat.  Put the horse before the cart.  That is, ask the citizens for the funding FIRST.  Put it to a vote.  If fifty percent plus one vote say that additional taxes are a good idea, then build the Aquatic Center.  Rules in a democracy dictate you not to forget the role of the governed or the role of the taxed.  We think Payson‘s debt should have been placed before the voters.  It‘s not a radical idea. 

Put the cart before the horse. Get voter buy-in before spending millions.

Day to day operation of government must occur from representative democracy.  The government is too complex not to.  We tire of the representative vs. direct deflection.  “Representative” does not mean carte blanche.  It does not remove the voter from the equation.

To put that in context, it helps to understand the historical precedents.  The Arizona Constitution was written in 1910.  The discussion about representative government is largely from the formation of the United States and are arguments from the Revolutionary War period.  When Arizona was conceived, it was during a “progressive period.” Initiatives, referendums, and recalls came about to fight undue influence from corporations such as railroads and others.  Twenty-six states have some form of direct democracy.  There are twenty-four that do not.  The discussion on representative vs. direct would not/could not occur in those twenty-four.

There are unique elements of the Arizona Constitution and the constitutions of Western states in general.  Some examples of the changes from early state constitutions, such as Maryland’s and others, to Arizona’s, are a strong emphasis on individual rights brought about by the Civil War.  To gain statehood, revisions were made to the 1910 document as it was “too progressive.” One of Arizona’s first orders of business was suffrage, passed and adopted into the constitution the same year Arizona was admitted to the Union.  That was before suffrage was enacted at the Federal level in 1920.  That effort was by direct democracy.

The Town of Payson has no issue with direct democracy when it works in their favor.  An example is Green Valley Park.  As a reminder, the Town had a plan for an off-year general obligation bond in 2025.  The Town had the approval of the General Plan on the last ballot.  The recent school bond?  It’s not a TOP matter, but nobody had an issue with direct democracy when it worked in their favor.  Simply glossing over by saying “elected representative” or “representative democracy” is a disservice to history and the importance of the individual.

Arizona requires a vote for indebtedness.  That is, a general obligation bond requires a vote of the people.  A revenue bond does not.  By doing what Wall Street does, Wall Street found some workarounds, such as a hybrid bond.  The bond proposal of $70m explicitly states it is not a hybrid.  If you read the indenture agreement, the revenue bond imposes some requirements on the Town that make it as close to a shotgun/hybrid as can be.  Some bullet points on the issues:

  • The funds were not allocated and can be used for any purpose.
  • The total debt burden to Payson is $112,429,225.00 ($112m) to obtain about $65 million in the bank.  About $9M is placed in a dead pool to meet bond requirements.  They can also allocate the money for prior land purchases to “reimburse” the general fund.  We suspect about $53M for actual projects.
  • The bond has access to state-shared revenue and the recent increase in sales tax (TPT.)
  • The bond automatically increases excise tax if funds fall below a threshold.

That is far from a straight revenue bond. It is servitude, much like a general obligation bond. As soon as the “representatives” start reading all the documents, we can have more faith in them.

Transparent Payson is not now, nor will it ever be, willing to silence citizens’ voices with cries of “representative democracy” when representatives fail to represent us.

 

 Voters and taxpayers have a role in the system that cannot be replaced with hollow arguments of “Representative Democracy.”

 

  • Recent Updates

    • Voters standing in line at polling booths on election day, with one woman in a blue jacket and gray scarf focused at her voting station; booths feature 'VOTE' signs, American flags, and privacy curtains in an indoor polling place.Payson: Our Town, Our Rights, Our Future to Defend
      Payson isn’t just another town in Arizona’s Rim Country. It’s home—a place where families raise children, seniors enjoy retirement with dignity, and hardworking residents build meaningful lives. But communities remain strong only when citizens […]
    • A Citizen’s Fight, How Transparent Payson Held Power Accountable
      In the dusty folds of rural Arizona, a small town became the epicenter of one of the most significant battles for local democracy in the state’s recent history.  Not many people noticed at first.  But that changed. Transparent Payson was born […]
    • Gratitude and ResolveWith Gratitude and Resolve
      To the citizens of Payson and all those who stood with us There comes a moment in every civic movement when the dust settles.  When the courtrooms go quiet, the signs are taken down, and the social feeds slow.  That moment is here for Transparent […]
    • Payson Town Legal Cow PuckeryTown Legal Platitudes and Cow Puckery
      It must be a something; it can’t be a nothing. We apologize for this very long post.  The process is nine months in the making.  The ongoing saga of a records request we have previously touched on in What is the Town of Payson Hiding and […]
    • Payson RoundupAn Open Letter to the Payson Roundup and Council Member Nossek
      The Roundup published an opinion by Council Member Nossek that took exception to voters’ rights.  Mr. Nossek targeted his address at me.  The Nossek opinion was removed from publication.  The opinion was on the heels of an article by Mr. Aleshire […]
    • Payson Town Legal, Same Old Same
      A funny thing happened when Mr. Jon Paladini separated from the Town of Payson.  We researched new Town Legal, Ms. Christina Werther, to see if there would be a change in approach regarding citizens’ rights.  Based on her position in a […]

  • A Healthy Government Does NOT Suppress Free Speech.

     

     

    Click the picture of silence above to learn more.

  • Contact Us.

     

    If you have questions or comments, please feel free to contact us. Stay informed on upcoming meetings, events, and progress. No worries; we never sell or distribute your information. We send occasional emails, always on point. Please click the icon below to send us an email.

    Email Us.

    Thank you!

  • Learn why these issues are essential.

     

     

    Act Up!

    Click the "ACT UP" picture to learn more.

  • A History of Transparent Payson

    Where it started, and where we are now. 

     A history of Transparent Payson

    We have been involved in voters' rights since 2018.

     

      Click the History picture above to learn more.

  • Join us on Facebook:

    Facebook Logo

    Click the Fcebook icon. 

Voter Rights Fruit of Pierce Coleman

Town Legal, Mr. Jon Paladini has separated from the Town of Payson.  Yesterday, we updated the records request and asked, “What is the Town of Payson Hiding?”   Soon, we will provide some information on the failed bond.  Today we will look at the firm of Pierce Coleman.  As we have stated before, there is no doubt that Pierce Coleman is a respected, reputable firm.  Governor Katie Hobbs’s office recognized the firm by nominating a partner, Christina Estes-Werther, to the Arizona Citizen Clean Election Commission.

“Christina Estes-Werther is among Arizona’s foremost experts in election law and administration,” said Governor Katie Hobbs.

As you will recall, Mr. Paladini has had an impact on Payson.

Mr. Paladini is not a good fit for the Town of Payson.  Mr. Paladini is a partner at the firm of Pierce Coleman and represents the firm.

We recognize that the Town of Payson requires Town Legal.  There may be some benefits to having a firm instead of a single individual.  There may be significant benefits in having “outside counsel.”  We anticipate that Pierce Coleman will be engaged as long as it suits the benefit of the incoming council.  We do not accept that Pierce Coleman is the only option.  That Mr. Paladini is a partner at Pierce Coleman is telling.  Unless the person is a “rainmaker,” generally Partners at a firm conform to firm culture.  Mr. Paladini does not strike us as a rainmaker.

voters rightsEvery organization, including every law firm, comes with a basic philosophy.  It is often referred to as corporate culture.  Corporate culture can be used to obtain a variety of goals.  The most important is the use of a common language.  That common language allows for aligning expectations and the organization to operate consistently.  That culture also eliminates rogue individuals.  Mr. Paladini was acting on behalf of his firm, Pierce Coleman.  Mr. Paladini’s prior statements represent the Pierce Coleman foundational culture.  Although Mr. Paladini, as representative of the firm, is no longer associated with the Town of Payson, Pierce Coleman, and by extension of Partnership, Mr. Paladini, is still associated with the Town of Payson.

The Town of Payson has a legal services agreement with Pierce Coleman.  Between July 2022 and August 2024, Pierce Coleman has received $817,969.42 in compensation from the Town.  As outlined in our post of Paper Tigers, experience teaches us that professionals, or anybody paid for an opinion or conclusion, come in two flavors: those who provide the answer and those who provide the answer you want.  The latter is nothing more than a “yes man.”

If a new representative from Pierce Coleman professes a “we get it moment” and recognizes that they have an obligation to the law and the taxpayer instead of just the Town Manager, we would be surprised if the corporate culture could be overcome.  Prior actions from Pierce Coleman in Payson and other towns do not appear to represent the ideals of transparency, citizen empowerment, or voters’ rights. The apple does not fall far from the tree.

It appears that their guidance is derived strictly from management’s desires.  If there is a newfound “we understand” moment, that does not change what they have shown to be their focus.  The focus does not appear to be honoring citizens’ voter rights or providing solid advice.

To put that statement in context, we can look at Pierce Coleman’s efforts to negate a referendum from our neighbors to the west, the Town of Prescott Valley.  Prescott Valley recently enacted annexation and rezoning on behalf of a landowner, Fain Land and Cattle, of approximately 652 acres west of Prescott Valley.  That rezoning would have allowed the property to be developed following Prescott Valley development requirements.  The development of the land would change the zoning from one single-family residence per two-acre minimum, or approximately 326 single-family homes, to the proposed 3,500 mixed housing units plus commercial.

That annexation resulted in citizens attempting to file a referendum.  Ultimately, the citizens filed a suit against the Town Clerk and various other defendants.  Pierce Coleman represented the Town of Prescott Valey.  The legal issue on this development and the referendum is a question of signatures required for the referendum.  The Town of Prescott Valley, supported by Pierce Coleman, arrived at the number of signatures by adding the total number of votes cast for the four council positions of 44,102 to all votes cast for a ballot measure of 12,984 during the July 30, 2024, election.  The total signatures required for a referendum, as endorsed by Pierce Coleman, was ten percent of 57,086, or 5,709 signatures.   The population of Prescott Valley in 2020 was 46,785.  The Political Action Committee maintained that using the July 30, 2024 election, electors (actual ballots) were ten percent of 14,550 ballots or 1,455 signatures.  There is a vast difference between the signature goals.

Pierce Coleman provided the legal opinion for Prescott Valley.  In the filings of Pierce Coleman via partner Christina Estes-Werther, Pierce Coleman concluded that the petitioners for a referendum would be required to obtain 5,709 valid signatures.   Drawing that conclusion is not solid counsel.  The conclusion serves only the Town’s and developer’s purpose.  It is not supportive of voter rights.

Pierce Coleman’s position and support of “creative math” could theoretically lead to a situation where more votes are required for the placement of a referendum than there are registered voters. For example, contemplate a race with multiple ballot issues.

Plaintiff Counsel Andy Gaona addressed this issue with Prescott Valley Legal in Exhibit Four of the Complaint.

For example, basing an initiative petition on the March election, at which one “councilman” was elected, would require the signatures of only 900 voters, or 15% of the approximate 6000 who voted in that election.  Basing a referendum petition on the February 1994 election, however, at which two “councilmen” were elected, would require the signatures of 2478 voters, or 10% of the approximate 24,000 who voted at that election.

Ultimately, the Town of Prescott Valley, under the guidance of Pierce Coleman, was found to be incorrect.  The Court resolved the matter, and the signature level was set at 1,455 signatures required.

5. The Court declares that A.R.S. § 19-142(A) requires the Town to count individual voters, not individual votes, when calculating the signatures required to propose a referendum to the community. The Court finds that “the whole number of votes cast” contained within A.R.S. § 19-142(A) means individual voters, a construction it adopts to avoid having to reach the question of the statute’s constitutionality. See, e.g., State ex rel. Montgomery v. Harris, 237 Ariz. 98, 102 n.3 (2014) (“[W]e construe statutes, when possible, to avoid constitutional difficulties.”) (cleaned up).

We understand that State Attorney General Kris Mayes opined on the matter.

State Attorney General Kris Mayes called that unconstitutional, adding, “The Arizona Constitution expressly provides that 10% of a town’s electors have the right to propose a referendum.  The Town is wrong to denigrate the referendum power, which is enshrined in the Arizona Constitution and must be broadly construed.  After all, the primary purpose of the referendum power is to give the people a direct check on elected officials.”

The anti-voter rights position of Pierce Coleman cost the Town of Prescott Valley $17,404.00 direct to plaintiffs, plus fees, plus delay.  The Court ordered:

The Court awards Plaintiff StopLakeShore650 the sum of $17,404.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs under A.R.S. §§ 12-341, 12-348, and 12-2030.

The Prescott Valley Committee submitted 379 petitions containing 4,563 signatures, far exceeding the 1,455 signatures required for placing the referendum on a future ballot.  Despite the urgency of the Town of Prescott Valley to trample on voter rights, it appears that the matter will be placed on the ballot in 2026 for the residents of Prescott Valley to provide their input.

Additional information on the proposed project and its current standing may be found at the Political Action Committee Prescott Valley Citizens Alliance.  That website explicitly addresses the Prescott Valley referendum LS650.

The documents from the court filings are below in PDF for review.  We have separated the legal opinion provided by Pierce Coleman below.

 

When somebody or something shows you who or what they are, accept that at face value.

 

We recognize the Town has several legal issues to resolve.  These include resolving Propositions 401 and 402, the Rose/Goldwater suit, and others.  The incoming Town Council has some monumental tasks in front of them.  We are confident the Council will take the best course.  We would encourage that course to find a replacement for the current Town Legal.  Pierce Coleman can remain engaged as long as and IF it suits the new Town Council’s needs, not one minute longer.

 

Like a windsock, Pierce Coleman blows with the wind; the wind does not favor voter rights.

Voter Rights Fruit of Pierce Coleman

 

TOWN OF PAYSON DISBURSEMENTS TO PIERCE COLEMAN

111824 Checkbook – Payson(9)

 

PIERCE COLEMAN PRIVILEGED OPINION FOR THE TOWN OF PRESCOTT VALLEY

conf opin of pierce coleman

 

STOP LAKESHORE 650 VS. TOWN OF PRESCOTT VALLEY, COMPLAINT

stop lakeshores 650 complaint

 

STOP LAKESHORE 650 VS. TOWN OF PRESCOTT VALLEY, CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

pierce coleman 2024-09-19 Town Defendants’ Cross MSJ

 

STOP LAKESHORE 650 VS. TOWN OF PRESCOTT VALLEY, JUDGEMENT

2024-10-02 Judgment (1)

 

STOP LAKESHORE 650 VS. TOWN OF PRESCOTT VALLEY, FINAL JUDGEMENT AND AWARD

2024-10-03 Final Judgment

 

  • Recent Updates

    • Voters standing in line at polling booths on election day, with one woman in a blue jacket and gray scarf focused at her voting station; booths feature 'VOTE' signs, American flags, and privacy curtains in an indoor polling place.Payson: Our Town, Our Rights, Our Future to Defend
      Payson isn’t just another town in Arizona’s Rim Country. It’s home—a place where families raise children, seniors enjoy retirement with dignity, and hardworking residents build meaningful lives. But communities remain strong only when citizens […]
    • A Citizen’s Fight, How Transparent Payson Held Power Accountable
      In the dusty folds of rural Arizona, a small town became the epicenter of one of the most significant battles for local democracy in the state’s recent history.  Not many people noticed at first.  But that changed. Transparent Payson was born […]
    • Gratitude and ResolveWith Gratitude and Resolve
      To the citizens of Payson and all those who stood with us There comes a moment in every civic movement when the dust settles.  When the courtrooms go quiet, the signs are taken down, and the social feeds slow.  That moment is here for Transparent […]
    • Payson Town Legal Cow PuckeryTown Legal Platitudes and Cow Puckery
      It must be a something; it can’t be a nothing. We apologize for this very long post.  The process is nine months in the making.  The ongoing saga of a records request we have previously touched on in What is the Town of Payson Hiding and […]
    • Payson RoundupAn Open Letter to the Payson Roundup and Council Member Nossek
      The Roundup published an opinion by Council Member Nossek that took exception to voters’ rights.  Mr. Nossek targeted his address at me.  The Nossek opinion was removed from publication.  The opinion was on the heels of an article by Mr. Aleshire […]
    • Payson Town Legal, Same Old Same
      A funny thing happened when Mr. Jon Paladini separated from the Town of Payson.  We researched new Town Legal, Ms. Christina Werther, to see if there would be a change in approach regarding citizens’ rights.  Based on her position in a […]

  • A Healthy Government Does NOT Suppress Free Speech.

     

     

    Click the picture of silence above to learn more.

  • Contact Us.

     

    If you have questions or comments, please feel free to contact us. Stay informed on upcoming meetings, events, and progress. No worries; we never sell or distribute your information. We send occasional emails, always on point. Please click the icon below to send us an email.

    Email Us.

    Thank you!

  • Learn why these issues are essential.

     

     

    Act Up!

    Click the "ACT UP" picture to learn more.

  • A History of Transparent Payson

    Where it started, and where we are now. 

     A history of Transparent Payson

    We have been involved in voters' rights since 2018.

     

      Click the History picture above to learn more.

  • Join us on Facebook:

    Facebook Logo

    Click the Fcebook icon. 

What is the Town of Payson Hiding?

Much has happened in the Town of Payson over the past few months.  The 70 Million Dollar bond has been shelved.  Lawsuits against the Town have advanced to the Arizona Court of Appeals.  Two incumbent Town Councilors and the Mayor lost their reelection bids.  The Town manager, Troy Smith, has “separated” as of January 3rd.  The Town Attorney, Jon Paladini, has been replaced.

We will have some updates on all in the next few days. Today is a records request update.  What is the Town of Payson hiding? 

Tomorrow, we will examine Mr. Paladini’s replacement. While the paper tiger is gone, we need a new zoo. Keeping the firm Pierce Coleman with a new head will not kill the hydra. Our research reflects that Pierce Coleman will go to great lengths to prevent citizens’ rights to a referendum: same story, different town.  We cannot expect different results if Pierce Coleman stays on board.

What is the Town of Payson Hiding
We need to kill the hydra.

After that, did you ever wonder how the firm Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated (“Stifel”) became the advisor and potential issuer of the bonds?  That decision was made in 2021.  Town Finance Manager Heidi Gregory agreed to the terms.  Had the placement occurred, the fees for the term above fifteen years would have been $105,000.00.  Nothing we can find shows any discussion by the Town Council on the bond terms.  That fee alone is well above the Town Manager’s signature level.  Who decided the term length?

Lawsuit Updates:

Transparent Payson and Rose/Goldwater cases continue.  The appeals process is slow.

The Records Request.

The Town has gone to great lengths to postpone the release. They have made every effort to provide the records in a format that is to their benefit, and that issue is ongoing.  The records released so far show that the Town spends time and public money discrediting people they do not like.

  • A plan to “address unreasonable comments from the community” and make the detractors “look bad?” Yes, anything is possible with YOUR tax dollars.  
  • KMOG and Charlie Seraphin?  YOUR tax dollars are spent monitoring and recording KMOG.
  • Steve Otto?  YOUR tax dollars were spent to “get in front of him.”
  • Letters to encourage a veto of unfavorable legislation?  YOUR tax dollars are at work to ensure they can tax your food.  

A complaint was filed months ago with the Ombudsman Office.  That office only has the power to investigate; they cannot compel records.  With the recent departure of the Town Attorney, Mr. Paladini, and the Town Manager, Mr. Smith, we are hopeful the Town Clerk can act more responsibly and in accordance with State law.

The current Town position is that:

“The Town Attorney approved* a limited release of documents.”

* Emphasis added.

The request is not contingent on the Town Attorney’s “approval.” We have again reminded the Town Clerk that all records, excluding privileged documents, will be produced as requested.

What is the Town of Payson Hiding
People and Towns share some things in common. What is the Town of Payson hiding?

The Town has provided some documents in .pdf format.  It does not appear they are retained in .pdf format.  One email, dated March 7th, stated:

Fyi – I will pull the emails on the back end but wanted you to be aware.

A “backend” pull suggests that all email records are retained in an electronic format.    Reviewing the .pdf documents the attachments provided cannot be matched to the emails.  The attachments lack context.  The emails contain redacted information that has no apparent basis for redaction.  The effort by the Town of Payson to circumvent the valid request appears significant.  We are confident that effort would be better spent honoring the request.  What is the Town of Payson hiding? 

Here is what the law requires:

¶ 1 Arizona law provides that “[p]public records and other matters in the custody of any officer shall be open to inspection by any person at all times during office hours.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 39-121 (2001). The City of Phoenix denied a public records request for metadata in the electronic version of a public record.  We today hold that if a public entity maintains a public record in an electronic format, then the electronic version, including any embedded metadata, is subject to disclosure under our public records laws.

Lake v. City of Phoenix, 222 Ariz. 547, 548 (Ariz. 2009)

One document provided by the Town, dated October 17th, 2023, was scanned on August 2nd, 2024.

What is the Town of Payson HidingWhat is the Town of Payson hiding?

The correspondence with the Town of November 13th is below in its entirety.

What have we learned so far?   The supporting emails are below for your review.

MEAN TWEETS

A plan to have a  social media presence to make detractors “look bad?”  Yes, that was in the works.

“Purpose: To address unreasonable comments from the community in a pre-recorded/scripted video.”

The goal?

It really does make those commenters look bad lol

Who was on board with a plan to mock citizens?

On Board:
Chief Ron Tischer (Moderator?)
Mayor Chris Higgins
Andrew Jackson
Maybe:
Sheila DeSchaaf
Troy Smith

We don’t know what is unreasonable, but are your tax dollars being spent on counteroffensive efforts to make outspoken citizens “look bad?” We would think it would be better to address the actual concerns. It appears not.

KMOG and CHARLIE SEAPHIN

Town staff referred to his potential return as “Hopefully … just a bad rumor.”  Don’t you worry, Town staff monitors and records the radio broadcast for your safety. Perhaps KMOG is subversive?

STEVE OTTO

YOUR tax dollars were spent to “get in front of him.”  We wonder if any tax dollars were spent after his campaign filings.

LETTERS TO SUPPORT VETO

SB1063 would prohibit cities, towns, and other taxing jurisdictions from levying a transaction privilege, sales, use, franchise, or other similar tax or fee on the sale of food items intended for home consumption.  Governor Hobbs vetoed the bill on March 28th, 2023.  Your tax dollars are at work to ensure the tax keeps rolling in.

What is the Town of Payson Hiding?
Pierce Coleman is not a good fit for the Town unless the Town wants to continue using the emergency ordinance at will and subverting voters’ rights.

Tomorrow, we will investigate Pierce Coleman and explain why the apple does not fall far from the tree.  Pierce Coleman is not a good fit if the goal is to retain voter’s rights or limit the Town’s power.

Exchange with Town Clerk of November 13th, 2024.

111324 EMAIL TO tOWN cLERK

 

MEAN TWEETS

032323 RE_ Mean Tweets – Idea

 

KMOG AND CHARLIE SERAPHIN

112924 Re_ KMOG Forum

 

STEVE OTTO

110523 RE_ Stephen Otto request

 

ADVOCATING FOR A VETO

032724 Fwd_ SB1063 municipal food tax; exemption

 

GOVERNOR HOBBS VETO OF SB1063

032823 Hobbs veto_-_sb_1063

 

  • Recent Updates

    • Voters standing in line at polling booths on election day, with one woman in a blue jacket and gray scarf focused at her voting station; booths feature 'VOTE' signs, American flags, and privacy curtains in an indoor polling place.Payson: Our Town, Our Rights, Our Future to Defend
      Payson isn’t just another town in Arizona’s Rim Country. It’s home—a place where families raise children, seniors enjoy retirement with dignity, and hardworking residents build meaningful lives. But communities remain strong only when citizens […]
    • A Citizen’s Fight, How Transparent Payson Held Power Accountable
      In the dusty folds of rural Arizona, a small town became the epicenter of one of the most significant battles for local democracy in the state’s recent history.  Not many people noticed at first.  But that changed. Transparent Payson was born […]
    • Gratitude and ResolveWith Gratitude and Resolve
      To the citizens of Payson and all those who stood with us There comes a moment in every civic movement when the dust settles.  When the courtrooms go quiet, the signs are taken down, and the social feeds slow.  That moment is here for Transparent […]
    • Payson Town Legal Cow PuckeryTown Legal Platitudes and Cow Puckery
      It must be a something; it can’t be a nothing. We apologize for this very long post.  The process is nine months in the making.  The ongoing saga of a records request we have previously touched on in What is the Town of Payson Hiding and […]
    • Payson RoundupAn Open Letter to the Payson Roundup and Council Member Nossek
      The Roundup published an opinion by Council Member Nossek that took exception to voters’ rights.  Mr. Nossek targeted his address at me.  The Nossek opinion was removed from publication.  The opinion was on the heels of an article by Mr. Aleshire […]
    • Payson Town Legal, Same Old Same
      A funny thing happened when Mr. Jon Paladini separated from the Town of Payson.  We researched new Town Legal, Ms. Christina Werther, to see if there would be a change in approach regarding citizens’ rights.  Based on her position in a […]

  • A Healthy Government Does NOT Suppress Free Speech.

     

     

    Click the picture of silence above to learn more.

  • Contact Us.

     

    If you have questions or comments, please feel free to contact us. Stay informed on upcoming meetings, events, and progress. No worries; we never sell or distribute your information. We send occasional emails, always on point. Please click the icon below to send us an email.

    Email Us.

    Thank you!

  • Learn why these issues are essential.

     

     

    Act Up!

    Click the "ACT UP" picture to learn more.

  • A History of Transparent Payson

    Where it started, and where we are now. 

     A history of Transparent Payson

    We have been involved in voters' rights since 2018.

     

      Click the History picture above to learn more.

  • Join us on Facebook:

    Facebook Logo

    Click the Fcebook icon. 

An Answering Brief on Transparent Payson Appeal

The Town has filed an answering brief to the appeal. The entire brief on Transparent Payson’s appeal is below in .pdf. The Town maintains that the Voter Protection Act does not apply to general-law towns.

Based on the totality of the record and Arizona law, it is established that the VPA does not apply to general law towns.  Payson did not have authority to refer administrative matters to the voting public, and 100% of the items that could be the subject of Propositions 401 and 402 were factually found to be administrative.  As said many times, words matter, and Propositions 401 and 402, as written, are unenforceable, invalid, of no legal force and effect, and the Payson Town Council was within their legal authority to repeal them through Ordinances 953 and 954 on April 12, 2023.

The Town maintains that all potential acts under 401 and 402 are administrative, not legislative.  That same argument was used in Rose vs. Town of Payson.  Administrative vs. legislative questions were somewhat addressed during the Rose Superior Court Hearing.   In Rose, it appeared that the Chambers Court found that Resolution 3359, the bond resolution, was a legislative issue.  In doing so, many questions were resolved.  As a legislative issue, but for the contrived “emergency clause,” the matter would have been subject to a referendum.

The Court approved a Notice of Withdrawal of Cross-Appeal in Transparent Payson’s appeal.

The above-entitled cross-appeal is DISMISSED and the caption shall be amended accordingly. Judges Vásquez and Kelly concurring. DATED: November 05, 2024

In a nutshell, that means the Town’s argument on standing against Plaintiffs is withdrawn.  As you will recall, the Answer and Counterclaim from the Town maintained that Transparent Payson had no standing as the group was referenced by the Town as Transparent Payson II.  That question was never really in play as Plaintiff Jeffrey Aal has standing.

Payson’s Answer and Counterclaim in 2023 also maintained insufficient votes as an affirmative defense.  The defense was not discussed in detail.  It seems counter to the election process.  An election is certified and implemented at various levels.  The affirmative defense appeared to imply that the election was not valid.  It appears that the question will never be answered. Transparent Payson Appeal

The next step in the Transparent Payson Appeal is a reply to the brief to be filed by Transparent Payson. 

We will keep you updated on the process.

Yesterday was election day. Congratulations to the victors in the races below.

PROPOSITION 419
Town of Payson		TOTAL
Yes4,118
No3,881
Total Votes Cast7,999
Overvotes2
Undervotes1,135
Contest Totals9,136

 

QUESTION Payson Unified School District #10

TOTAL
BUDGET OVERRIDE CONTINUATION, YES6,598
BUDGET OVERRIDE CONTINUATION, NO4,836
Total Votes Cast11,434
Overvotes0
Undervotes1,298
Contest Totals12,732

Board Member Green Valley Water Sanitary District (Vote for three.)

TOTAL
BRENNEMAN, TERRY3,957
DYE, SHIRLEY3,741
HEATHER, MICHAEL2,792
WAGGONER, FORREST4,355
Write-In Totals45
Total Votes Cast14,890
Overvotes3
Undervotes12,395
Contest Totals27,288

Board Member Payson Unified School District #10 (Vote for three.)

TOTAL
CONLIN, JOANNE5,244
HOGUE, AUDREY5,837
MARINELLI, MICHELL4,926
VANOVER, LORI D.4,971
Write-In Totals95
Total Votes  Cast21,073
Overvotes21
Undervotes17,102
Contest Totals38,196

 

Town of Payson Answering Brief

 

ANSWERING BRIEF

  • Recent Updates

    • Voters standing in line at polling booths on election day, with one woman in a blue jacket and gray scarf focused at her voting station; booths feature 'VOTE' signs, American flags, and privacy curtains in an indoor polling place.Payson: Our Town, Our Rights, Our Future to Defend
      Payson isn’t just another town in Arizona’s Rim Country. It’s home—a place where families raise children, seniors enjoy retirement with dignity, and hardworking residents build meaningful lives. But communities remain strong only when citizens […]
    • A Citizen’s Fight, How Transparent Payson Held Power Accountable
      In the dusty folds of rural Arizona, a small town became the epicenter of one of the most significant battles for local democracy in the state’s recent history.  Not many people noticed at first.  But that changed. Transparent Payson was born […]
    • Gratitude and ResolveWith Gratitude and Resolve
      To the citizens of Payson and all those who stood with us There comes a moment in every civic movement when the dust settles.  When the courtrooms go quiet, the signs are taken down, and the social feeds slow.  That moment is here for Transparent […]
    • Payson Town Legal Cow PuckeryTown Legal Platitudes and Cow Puckery
      It must be a something; it can’t be a nothing. We apologize for this very long post.  The process is nine months in the making.  The ongoing saga of a records request we have previously touched on in What is the Town of Payson Hiding and […]
    • Payson RoundupAn Open Letter to the Payson Roundup and Council Member Nossek
      The Roundup published an opinion by Council Member Nossek that took exception to voters’ rights.  Mr. Nossek targeted his address at me.  The Nossek opinion was removed from publication.  The opinion was on the heels of an article by Mr. Aleshire […]
    • Payson Town Legal, Same Old Same
      A funny thing happened when Mr. Jon Paladini separated from the Town of Payson.  We researched new Town Legal, Ms. Christina Werther, to see if there would be a change in approach regarding citizens’ rights.  Based on her position in a […]

  • A Healthy Government Does NOT Suppress Free Speech.

     

     

    Click the picture of silence above to learn more.

  • Contact Us.

     

    If you have questions or comments, please feel free to contact us. Stay informed on upcoming meetings, events, and progress. No worries; we never sell or distribute your information. We send occasional emails, always on point. Please click the icon below to send us an email.

    Email Us.

    Thank you!

  • Learn why these issues are essential.

     

     

    Act Up!

    Click the "ACT UP" picture to learn more.

  • A History of Transparent Payson

    Where it started, and where we are now. 

     A history of Transparent Payson

    We have been involved in voters' rights since 2018.

     

      Click the History picture above to learn more.

  • Join us on Facebook:

    Facebook Logo

    Click the Fcebook icon.