Each man, woman and child in Quartzsite owes ten cents for the court filing fee that the Town just paid to sue itself. Thanks to Martin Brannan, Town Attorney, who filed the lawsuit.
Only ten cents. That’s the good news. There’s also the much greater cost of serving the papers on Council members, necessary legal advice, Martin Brannan’s salaried time spent on suing Town Council members, car and driver expense to deliver the documents to the court clerk, lost time by all involved, etc.
August 29 10:45 am UPDATE:
A working audio is now available on the Town website, but only the first half of the meeting.
================================
Does the Quartzsite Town Council want the public to know what is going on at their meetings?
The Town’s posted (internet) audio recording of today’s meeting is defective again. Only the first 44 seconds of the meeting are
audible. The meeting lasted 24 minutes. This is not the first time that critical records of important events have been mysteriously lost to “technological problems” – a phrase frequently used by Martin Brannan, Town Attorney. That phrase has been used more than once to “excuse” the Town from its obligation to inform the public of the occurrence of meetings.
Also, Council members cannot seem to use their microphones. In spite of constant comments and complaints during meetings from the public who cannot hear what the council members are saying, nothing has been done to correct this simple problem.
These two conditions together constitute an unwillingness of the Council to communicate with the people they hold meetings for.
A full house present to watch. Town Manager Alexandra Taft placed on administrative leave – the same fate met by many her former long experienced employees. New Town Manager appointed: Terry Frausto (Town Clerk).
Video much appreciated, contributed by Southwest Desert News / MPI, LLC (copyright)
Martin Brannan
Quartzsite Town Attorney Martin Brannan filed a petition for a Temporary Restraining Order this morning ostensibly on behalf of the Town of Quartzsite (plaintiff) against the Town’s elected officials! (Town Council, defendants). So, in effect, Mr. Brannan is suing the Town on behalf of the Town! (Interestingly, he is suing his own clients, to whom he gives legal advice.)
It appears the motive for this bizarre move was to protect his job, since the Town Council was to consider firing the Town Manager and Assistant Town Manager, who hired and sustain Mr. Brannan. (Mr Brannan has been the subject of numerous Bar complaints, still pending, according to the Arizona Republic newspaper.) Mr. Brannan claims such firings would be illegal. But
1) if true, it wouldn’t be the first time the Town acted illegally. The old Town council has routinely held illegal meetings, as the State AG has already ruled. Mr. Brannan never filed a TRO to stop those illegal meetings. And
2) a TRO is supposed to be issued only after an act, when actual harm is alleged. Not before.
Surprisingly (or not, considering his track record for the town), La Paz County Superior Court Michael Burke signed off the TRO, which this reporter believes fails the 4 basic legal tests for a TRO at every point. (If nothing else, ignoring Mr. Brannan’s obvious conflict of interest, Mr. Brannan lacks standing to sue the Town Council on behalf of the Town. Clearly, the Town Council did not authorize this suit against them.) In essence, what Judge Burke has done is akin to barring the Arizona Legislature from voting on SB 1070 because it might be unconstitutional. A TRO is not ripe until a law or act has been ratified. You can’t get a TRO because of what someone “might” do. There has to be actual harm.
Now Judge Burke has created a constitutional issue, a violation of Article III, Distribution of Powers clause in the AZ Constitution, because the Judicial is telling the Legislative what it can and cannot do.
Hopefully the Arizona Attorney General will step in with an emergency appeal to the Arizona Court of Appeals to overturn Judge Burke as it has done a few times already.
——————
“A party seeking injunctive relief must show:
1. that they are likely to succeed on the merits,
2. that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,
3. that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and
4. that the injunction is in the public interest.”
At minimum, it is hard to see how it is not in the public interest for elected officials to do their job.
[contributed by Quartzsite Outsider – Thanks!]