The most pressing issue currently facing the residents and property owners of the Sonoita area is the creation of the Sonoita Elgin Fire District. A permanent Special Tax district which gives the board members of such a fire district the absolute power to levy property tax in the amount they see fit. Regardless of their personal aspirations or the inefficiency and idiocy of their management decisions, if they want money, they get money - ours. If you don't pay, your property will be sold at a delinquent tax auction.

Very few residents will argue that a fire district is unnecessary - because it most likely is. Sonoita is growing and the demand for emergency services is growing proportionately. Additionally, over the last several years, the SEESI board has manufactured a money gobbling monster which voluntary donations can no longer feed. What isn't necessary, and cannot be tolerated, is the selfish, delusional, and incompetent fire board we currently have trying to ram this tax district down our throats in violation of the requirements of the Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) which governs the creation of such a district. Evidence of multiple violations is documented and clear. In the face of such evidence, one can only speculate as to why the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and County Attorney remain stubbornly and adamantly opposed to an open and fair petition process. They will pay for their disservice to the community at the next election.

Because attempts over the last few months to address the validity of the fire distict petition process have been largely disregarded by the county, time is now of the essence. Below please find preliminary information regarding irregularities in the petition process; more will follow.

Please keep in mind the widespread community opposition is to this fire board and its incompetent, dictatorial practices, and is not to the principle of an efficient fire district for the Sonoita area. Quality emergency services are a priorty to everyone. Please keep in mind the widespread community opposition is to this fire board and its incompetent, dictatorial practices, and is not to the principle of an efficient fire district for the Sonoita area. Quality emergency services are a priorty to everyone.

Items for legal challenge to fire district petition validition process

(Preliminary) A question of fairness to the taxpayers of the community.

1. Several petition pages did not have "paid" or "volunteer" marked, indicating the petition circulator's status. In spite of this, those signatures were apparently judged valid. ARS 48-265-B,D is crystal clear about this - all signatures on such pages are invalid.
   
   There is no need to go any farther. According to the requirements set forth by the Arizona Revised Statutes, the fire district proposal did not gather enough valid signatures to be approved by the Board of Supervisors. Period. But there is much more.
   
   
2. On several copies of petitions provided for review by Santa Cruz County, the printing of "other information" on back side, as required by ARS, is absent.
   
   
3. The submission of just a PO box as the actual address invalidates the accompanying signature. Over and over, when this occured, the correct address was written in by a third party, apparently illegally validating that signature. Once again we need to go no further.
   
   
4. Signatures from different counties are required to be collected on different petition sheets. In this case, signatures from both counties appear on the same petition sheets and were wrongly judged valid. ARS 19-112-C states: "All signatures of petitioners on a signature sheet shall be those of qualified electors who are registered to vote in the same county. However, if signatures from more than one county appear on the same signature sheet, only the valid signatures from the same county which are more numerous on the signature sheet shall be counted." Once again we need to go no further. Compliance with this statute invalidates another 100 plus signatures. Yoo hoo - Silva, you there?
   
   In other words, Pima County signatures are invalid unless they appear on a petition sheet on which Pima County signatures are in the majority. In the few instances where this occurs, an astute observer would quickly realize that all the Santa Cruz County signatures on that particular petition sheet would then become invalid because they would not be in the majority.
   
   
5. The petition circulator is authorized to fill in only the date of the signature on the petition, as stated in ARS 19-112-A. Petition review reveals a large number of modifications to information provided by petition signers. These modifications are clearly identifiable due to distinctly different handwriting and different writing instruments. ARS does not allow third party modification or addition to signer's petition information, other than adding the signing date. Such disregard of ARS and the obvious effort to subvert and influence the results of the process may even be considered a criminal act. Once again..............
   
   
6. Per Ann Rodriguez (Pima County Recorder), no validation of property ownership and assessed value was provided by the Pima County Recorder. None was ever requested by Santa Cruz County. This means 2 of the 3 criteria required to approve the fire district creation were not properly validated by the county of jurisdiction. The method which the Santa Cruz county recorder used to determine Pima County petition validity must be made available for legal and public scrutiny. Actually, with no results having been released, the question remains as to whether or not the validation of property ownership and assessed value signatures ever took place for Santa Cruz County or Pima County.
   It is required by the ARS, so let's see it!
   
   
7. Santa Cruz County Recorder has not provided full information about valid and invalid signatures for public review. The Santa Cruz County Recorder does not have a list of disqualified signatures for public review. Sainz stated that she gave the only copy of the list to the fire district board. Why would she do that? Is she authorized to give away the only copy of a public record? In a weak defense, she stated that she still has her notes.
   
   
8. Violation of open meeting requirements. Notice was placed on Post Office bulletin board Friday afternoon and the meeting was held on Monday afternoon. This is insufficient time or effort to notify a concerned public. Some 400 residents of Pima county and Santa Cruz county south of Sonoita use rural route boxes for mail delivery. They do not go to the post office to pick up mail and could have no knowledge of a meeting. Absolutely no notice. On a clearly devisive issue with only 30 people in attendance and all 30 people are in favor of the district? A stacked deck and the Board of Supervisors knew it. When the minutes of this meeting are replayed - people will listen. John Maynard will be called to account at election time, or sooner.
   
   
9. The numbers don't add up according to Bulletin article.  927 total signatures were gathered according to the Weekly Bulletin.158 were invalidated by Pima County alone, according to the Pima County certification. Therefore, 769 is the total remaining possible valid signatures - and then only if Santa Cruz county signatures were 100% valid. Not likely considering only a pitiful 36% were valid in Pima County. Although 816 were required to approve the fire district, according to the Weekly Bulletin, and still it passed. Once again.......................
   
   
10. Appearance of impropriety - According to Pima County Recorder Certification, 246 Pima County registered voter signatures were submitted by the fire district for validation - 83 were verified - 158 were invalidated. 64% of Pima County signatures were invalid. Something is wrong here.Additionally, the Pima County Certification states that there were only 178 registered voters in the Pima County portion of the proposed fire district when the creation process began. How do you get 246 signatures with only 178 registered voters if your petition circulators can speak english and complete simple sentences? Is this Chicago?
    
    
11. ARS 48-265-I makes it clear that a class 1 misdemeanor has been commited when a petition circulator has not adequately deposed signers to the extent that the circulator believes the signer is qualified. A sworn statement is executed by the petition circulator verifying that such a deposition has taken place. In view of the pathetic 36% validity percentage as verified by the Pima County Recorder, it is clear that class 1 misdemeanors have occured and that an investigative effort should take place immediately to identify and prosecute the guilty parties. Addresses from Tucson and other areas clearly outside of the proposed fire district are noticeable at first glance on petitions. Duplicate signatures appear on petitions over 40 times. You almost have to see it to believe it.
    
    
12. Finding sufficient additional valid signatures within minutes of the deadline after official validation rulings have already been made by the County Recorder? Huddling with the applicant in a county meeting room minutes before the deadline and coming up with 18 more valid signatures? This is beginning to smell like a conspiracy. Those additional validations and the supporting legal basis for the recovery of each of those previously invalid signatures must be made available for legal scrutiny. The criteria for the entire process must be made public for verification of compliance with Arizona Revised Statutes.
    
    
13. Numerous signors are prepared to submit affidavits and testify that petition circulators stated that the petition was to place the creation of the fire district on a ballot for public vote, not that the petition itself was the vote. How many signors were mislead?
    
    
14. No verification as to the accuracy of documentation and information which accompanied the petitions sent to absentee owners has been presented for review. Previous information publicized by fire district board was erroneous and misleading. Evidence should be required that absentee owners were not mislead about the facts and benefits versus the annual cost of a fire district.
    
    

Note:  According to a Weekly Bulletin article, after all the groping and wrangling for valid signatures (including the 18 new ones found in an 11th hour "huddle" on the floor of the Board of Supervisors meeting room between Rippel and Sainz), the proposal was judged by the county to have only three (3) signatures above the required number. This is a special tax district and it will be permanent. There is no absolutely no justification for not starting over with a new fire board and doing it lawfully.

References:  Arizona Revised Statutes, Weekly Bulletin, Pima County Certification Certificate, Copy of fire district proposal petitions(Santa Cruz county provided), telephone conversations with: a private attorney, Ann Rodriguez (Pima County Recorder), Susie Sainz (Santa Cruz County Recorder)

Additional points to ponder:

• After all these years, why would the SEESI board rewrite its bylaws in June of this year, removing all accountability to its members and removing avenues of recourse by its members when the board runs wild? Rumor has that it was done very quietly and none of the membership knew about it or had any say in it. This issue is next in line to be dealt with.
  
  
• Is the newly elected chairman of the fire board also on duty as a responder? Statutes are clear that one can not do both in a fire district.
  
  
• Speaking of the newly elected chairman of the fire board, Pete Daniels, the petitions show that as a petition circulator he obtained the signature from the same person twice in one day. This is a criminal offense. It is also incompetance. This guy probably has visions of being the future Sonoita Elgin fire chief, complete with power, glory, a big salary, and a retirement plan. All he has to do is reverse course and argue that the current uncertified fire chief is a liability. Ironically, this would probably be a true statement and we should all be concerned about liability. In a fire district, the taxpayers are ultimately responsible for costs incurred by the fire department, including financial awards for negligence.
  
  
• The original fire board applicants threatened us that if we didn't approve the fire district they were going to have to raise fees sky high to afford to continue to provide emergency service. Then they proceed to add on to the firehouse and buy new equipment, using the explanation that these items were already budgeted (surprisingly, there has been no mention of 2 new firestations lately). Get these guys out of there and let's start over with a capable fire board of community minded property owners who can organize a business sensibly and who understand the meaning of public service.
  
  Now we have been told that one of the three original board members, a signee on the original application, was not qualified to be on the board in the first place and has been removed. It is a zoo.
  
  
• The petition numbers don't add up according to a Weekly Bulletin article. 927 total signatures were gathered according to the Weekly Bulletin. 158 were invalidated by Pima County alone, according to the official Pima County certification. Therefore, 769 is the total remaining possible valid signatures. Although 816 signatures were required to approve the fire district, according to the Weekly Bulletin, the county approved it anyway. Disregarding all other violations (of which there are many), the required number of valid signatures was not collected. The will of the majority is being ignored.
  
  
• If a legitimate and accurate count of valid signatures ever takes place, the legimate total will probably be in the area of around 500. This is not the mandate that the ARS requires and that John Maynard stated he wanted to see a year and a half ago when he said he wanted to let the voters decide. What possible motive could Maynard have for his unabashed support of a poorly executed and failed petition process which is vigorously opposed by the majority? Where will Maynard decide to spend the additional revenue the county receives from our unecessarily high fire district taxes? Eastern Santa Cruz county? Right. The whole deal stinks, as does Maynard's representation of our part of the county.
  
  
• Keep in mind that even with all the questionable tactics and last minute boardroom floor huddles, the Santa Cruz County Recorder says the measure passed with only 3 signatures to spare. This alone should require a review. The problem with a review is that they don't have a final list of which signatures they approved, and the notes kept by the Santa Cruz County Recorder are insufficent to remind them what they did in the first place. This bears repeating: County Attorney Silva tossed the ball to County Recorder Sainz by instructing her to produce an official list of approved signatures. She has yet to deliver! Being ultimately responsible for the county's compliance with Arizona Statutes, Silva's legal advice and pompous attitude will soon come under severe scrutiny. Although probably true, his argument that the supervisors wouldn't listen to him will fall on deaf ears - he will most likely be where the buck stops.
  
  

Knowing that this matter is headed for court will probably prompt the finger pointing to start in earnest. County Attorney Silva already started in his recent article in the Bulletin, but he's going to have to develop better skills quickly. Early indications are that County Recorder Sainz looks like the easiest target. Who knows how a cornered recorder will react. Look for all of them to suffer damaging embarrassment on the stand. Their actions are indefensible.

As of this date, approximately 15 respected area residents have agreed to share the cost of litigating this farce in a court of law. No more attempts at being reasonable with this bunch - the wheels of justice are now turning. If you are interested in becoming the beneficiary of a fire district which truly benefits the community, and not just a few delusional individuals, join the effort to create and support a sensible and efficient emergency services organization in Sonoita. Sign up to join the lawsuit.

While court costs and attorney fees are most likely recoverable from the county, if more people join in, and the show of force is great, these perpetrators just may come to their senses and save a lot of time and expense. The sooner it is over, the sooner we can deal with this SEESI board, and the sooner a legitimate fire district effort can begin. Join in and help disprove the old adage that "you can't beat city hall!"