Anne Graham-Bergin, the attorney representing Pinal Citizens for Sustainable Communities (PCSC) has responded to Pinal County regarding claims by Anam, Inc. that the Willow Springs referndum petitions are not valid. 

       In her response, dated July 12, 2001, Graham-Bergin disputes Anam's claims, and informs Pinal County Deputy Attorney William McLean that if Gilbert Hoyos, Pinal County Elections Director, chooses to reject the petitions PCSC will institute a court action to force Hoyos " to perform his statutory duty." 

       Deputy County Attorney William McLean informed Graham-Bergin of Anam's claim on Monday July 9 and said Hoyos would decide whether to accept or reject the petitions on "Wednesday, July 12, 2001". 

       July 12 is today, not Wednesday.  On Wednesday, July 11, McLean moved the deadline to today.

       A letter dated July 5, Snell & Wilmer, the law firm representing Anam, Inc., contends the petitions are invalid because:

1. Anam claimed the due date for the petitions was June15,  not July 2
2. Anam claimed the material attached to the petitions was incomplete because the Planned Area Development (PAD) document was not attached to each petition.

       Graham-Bergin's letter says that from May 16 through May 31 Hoyos repeatedly told PCSC representatives that the county was unable to furnish the material that state law requires to be attached to each petition.

       When Hoyos furnished the material May 31, he wrote "July 2, 2001" as the due date on the Application for Petition Serial Number and initialed it. 

       Graham-Bergin's letter says that if Pinal County rejects the petitions because the county believes the due date they originally established is now invalid, "the constitutional rights of the thousands of persons signing the petition will be denied."

       Regarding Anam's claim that the PAD document should have been attached to petitions, Graham-Bergin's letter includes a copy of a memo to Mary Ellen Kazda from Becky Canalez of the Pinal Elections Department. 

       Canalez's memo documents the fact that the County Attorney’s office approved the material on May 31, 2001, prior to Hoyos giving the material to PCSC representatives to attach to the petitions.  Kazda received the memo July 1.

       The materials approved by the Pinal County Attorney's office did not include the PAD document.