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 was instrumental in drafting position papers on applying the Voter’s Protection Act and justifying the removal of propositions 401 and 402.
• Mr. Paladini has defended the liberal use of emergency ordinances.
• Mr. Paladini provided aggressive responses to the Rose/Goldwater Institute suit.
• Mr. Paladini has approved leases by the Town for property that the Town did not control.
• Mr. Paladini is knee-deep in our records request, presumably directing/approving the response and fulfillment of the records request.

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.

Every 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.

TOWN OF PAYSON DISBURSEMENTS TO PIERCE COLEMAN

PIERCE COLEMAN PRIVILEGED OPINION FOR THE TOWN OF PRESCOTT VALLEY

STOP LAKESHORE 650 VS. TOWN OF PRESCOTT VALLEY, COMPLAINT

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

STOP LAKESHORE 650 VS. TOWN OF PRESCOTT VALLEY, JUDGEMENT

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