CCRC Tries To Approve Falsified Minutes/ Change Election Results

By Flagstaff Independent Press Staff

At their January 19th meeting, the Coconino County Republican Committee (CCRC) tried to pass falsified minutes and secretly sneak in a list of State Committeemen that was different from the list announced at their December 15th Statutory Meeting. The minutes were handed out to the body literally moments before a vote was to take place, so nobody had a chance to read them. Unfortunately for CCRC leadership, several members of the body had to leave early and one member pointed out that quorum was lost. The minutes never went to a vote.

According to State Republican officials, since the new list of State Committeemen included in the minutes was not approved by the body, the original list of State Committeemen winners as announced at the December 15th meeting stands.

Below are the scans of the minutes page by page, accompanied by a list of inconsistencies and flat out lies.

(It’s worth pointing out that CCRC Secretary, Troy Campbell who supposedly wrote these minutes was strangely absent at the January 19th meeting where they were to be approved).

minutes 1

Page 1: Look for the following:

“Total of 72 votes (including proxies and in person).”

“Note: It was later discovered that the PC who arrived late was already included in the vote count via proxy so the total vote count remained at 72.”

You will need to remember that on page 2.


“Travis Estes 3rd Vice Chair; nominated by Charles Lyon”

False, Joanna Estes and John Kistler both raised their hand to nominate Travis Estes. Joanna Estes is the one who actually made the motion.

Daniel Vigil nominated for 1st Vice Chair.

You will need to remember this for page two.

minutes 2

Page 2. OK, remember how Page 1 said 72 people were credentialed? That is correct. But somebody in the CCRC doesn’t know math.

2nd Vice Chair: Trudy Wieber 41 Votes, James Burton 32 votes, Daniel Vigil 3 votes.

That’s a total of 76 votes. But wait, page one says (correctly) that Daniel Vigil was nominated for 1st Vice Chair. So this is screwed up. Still, it shows 73 votes when 72 people were credentialed.

But it gets worse.

3rd Vice Chair Richard Mihalik 43 votes, Travis Estes 32 votes.

I’m not a math genius but that’s 75 votes. Only 72 people were credentialed.

Treasurer: Ray Jordan 37 votes. Joanna Estes 36 votes.

That’s 73 votes! Only 72 people were credentialed. Who got the bonus vote? Was it a tie?

“Nominations from the floor for State Committeemen: Hunter Kemmet was nominated by Drake Mitchell.”

Audio recording from the meeting shows that Elisha Dorfsmith nominated Hunter Kemmet.

“It was announced that Final Results would come later as the vote counting was not finished. The weather was deteriorating and members were eager to get home before the roads got worse.”

This is completely false! The results were announced as being FINAL and the vote counting WAS finished!!!!

Chris Campbell, Assistant Sergeant of Arms for the State Republican Party attended the December 15th meeting and this is his response to this portion of the minutes:

“I am however very concerned that I’m being told that what I observed on
Saturday December 15th is not what’s being put in the meeting minutes. For
example, it was never announced that the results of the State
Committeemen election were preliminary; the list of names announced
where the final list.

minutes 3

Page 3. Lastly, attached to the minutes was the newly revised list of State Committeemen that was different from the list announced at the December 15th meeting. Drake Mitchell and John Kistler had been replaced. Kistler was now shown as receiving the least amount of votes.

Here’s the real list of winners that was read at the December 15th meeting:

Rule 14, approved unanimously by the members of the body at that meeting stated:

“The results as announced by the Credentials Committee spokesperson are final. No further discussion will be entertained.”

Also worth reading:

Minutes before the January 19th quarterly meeting, Coconino County Republican PC and Credentials Committee member David Lipinski released a statement to the public that called the new CCRC leadership out on their dirty tricks. That letter can be found here:


CCRC Credentials Committee Member Speaks Out Against Corruption

In response to dirty tricks and illegal backroom deals by the Coconino County Republican Party, Coconino County GOP PC and Credentials Committee member David Lipinski speaks out and demands CCRC Chair Joy Staveley do the right thing.

“To the general body of the CCRC:

            I am going to make this brief. I hereby resign my position as precinct committeeman for CCRC. As of today, I have moved to Bullhead City to be closer to my children. I have waited for 5 long years for an opportunity for us to live in the same town and it was much easier for me to move than for them to uproot their loves. I spent 14 years here before moving to Flagstaff in 2007, so this is home.

            Now to the more pressing issue of the day, the election of December 15. To the greater public, I have remained quiet in regards to the outcome mainly because I was too busy to get deeply involved with what had gone on. I gave my opinion at the executive meeting, and was quickly interrupted when it was clear my opinion differed. I do take into consideration that it was a Saturday and we all had things to do, however, I feel my point spoke directly to the issue at hand. My opinion is this. I was and still am convinced 100% that the entire committee agreed the names I read off that day were what we truly believed to be correct. We had found our own mistake and believed we fixed it. We even had an outside set of eyes watch as we tabulated. At NO TIME did anyone state they were uncomfortable with the names being read. Was the list disorganized? Yes. Was it clear who I was supposed to read off? Yes. It was written in blue ink. Did I ask Diana if we could read the 1-27 off so everyone could go home? Yes. Did we also say we would complete the rest of the list so those that did not win a position would at least know where they came? Yes. AT NO TIME DID ANYONE ON THE COMMITTEE SPEAK OF DOING A RECOUNT BASED ON ANY INFORMATION WE RECEIVED. Why? Because we didn’t believe there to be a need.

            So how did the recount happen? Well it was based on the perceived “feeling” the current Chair had regarding the outcome. She said to me several times, “Something didn’t feel right.” And said it during the executive meeting. She had an assumption on who was going to win based on the people running. She knew the numbers were in the favor of certain people. When some names were not read off, her senses sparked up. What had happened? How did “they” win? She was going to certainly find out. As the final list of names was emailed to her from Clark, Jeff’s name was not on the list—ok—clerical error, big deal. She knew Jeff’s name had been read, but it was not on the list. Here comes the fun part. She asks Clark about Jeff, he agrees Jeff won the most votes. Then a few days pass apparently and Clark gets worried about if we all made a larger mistake and goes back to conduct a full recount. Let me be clear about this. I trust Clark and his reasons. I trust his ability to tabulate votes. He’s an upstanding man of character and I don’t believe he did this with any intent to cause issue. What I will state clearly, is if Joy wanted to do what was right, take the harder road, she would have made it clear there was to be no recount whatsoever. She would have reviewed the rules made clear by the Rules committee. She would have revisited Roberts Rules of Order and found that our committee was void after the meeting on the 15th was over. Specifically, she would have seen rule 14 which specifically did not allow for a recount. A rule put in place so a certain group of people could not ask for one. Interesting how that worked out. You see, she had already had this “feeling” and there was no going back for her. She knew certain people weren’t going to win based on numbers. So there was a recount based on a “feeling”. I DID sign my name to the corrected list and will state publicly that I feel they are correct to the votes. But how did we get there? A “feeling”.  Not an objection during the meeting, not someone calling foul play in the process…a “feeling”. Half the country didn’t like the outcome of this last Presidential election, but we didn’t recount based on our “feelings”.  People, the process is more important than the outcome. Joy will say she wants the people who got the votes to win. That’s understandable, no objection from me there. But there are so many questions; even I am questioning my own abilities and what I did. When this all began, I looked to Joy as a leader and someone who had the knowledge as to what was the RIGHT thing to do. I saw someone take charge of a messy situation and try and figure it out because I didn’t have the answers.

            Then I began to see the truth of the matter as it played out. As I described before, it became clear to me her “feelings” were getting in the way of what was right. She began to make decisions that could not be undone. I asked her to confer with legal advice on the issue. She said, “I spoke with Lee Miller and he gave me a way out of this rule 14.” A way out? As if she was…stuck? Using logic, a person tries to find a way out of something when they are in a position they don’t want to be in, let’s say, losing key positions in an election. The way out could have been stating the results read on the 15th were preliminary….Interesting. I think we all received an email stating that….

            Joy is not neutral and we all know it. She should have never called Lee Miller to explain the issue as she had both everything to gain and everything to lose from this election. Even if our committee was technically done after the meeting, one of us should have been asked, by Joy, to call Lee Miller. But instead, I am certain she asked him leading questions. Or else why would he “give her a way out.”?   

            Joy, you and I talked on the phone several times and agree on a great many things regarding the direction this country needs to go. We stood in your office and you asked me to keep being involved and if others from “the group” would still be interested in participating. I said I would do my best to keep them involved. You gained my trust and through this have lost it. I stood up for you in the beginning because you genuinely came off as if you cared for the process and not the outcome. But after the executive meeting when you shut me down, and would not allow me to bring up rule 14 as even a subject to be discussed, I knew then you didn’t care about the process, you cared only about the self-serving outcome. You told me one time, “Good leaders sometimes have to make hard decisions and can’t please everyone all the time, they have to do what is right.” You did what was wrong because it didn’t serve your interest to have outsiders win. End of story.

            I am forwarding and making public every email I have regarding this issue. It may help, it may not. I am willing to speak to the press, our elected officials, write letters or whatever is necessary for one of three things to happen. First, Joy, allow the State Committeemen list that I read (the one the committee agreed to) stand, apologize for reducing the process to the level of a high school popularity contest. Two, resign as Chair with the dignity you might have left, or three, sit back and watch as a great number of people attempt to find a way for you to be removed. If none of these happens, and you remain, you will be looked at in the same light as the guy who just had 50% of the country NOT vote for him. They guy who did everything in his power to STAY in power. You spoke to me about people with integrity and values. Know lets see if you have any.

            You might fire back an email with the same explanation you gave everyone else. You might even call me. If you do either, let the subject be this. “I’m sorry for letting my “feelings” get in the way of what was right.” If not, please don’t bother as I have two children to have fun with and teach them integrity, honor, courage and that sometimes we lose…and that’s ok.

             This was not one last parting shot. This is the truth as I saw it unfold. Perception is reality, and the reality has spoken clearly and not just from my angle. When the elected representatives we helped into office are concerned, and when our State leadership is also concerned, WE should all take that as a serious issue to be resolved.

May God Bless each of you in the future and may He guide the CCRC into a bright future for the betterment of the County, State and Country.

 David Lipinski”

Flagstaff PMO Officially Dead

By Elisha Dorfsmith

At their January 8th work session meeting, the Flagstaff City Council officially decided to no longer pursue a property maintenance ordinance (PMO) for Flagstaff.

In December, 2011 the Flagstaff City Council unanimously supported a PMO for Flagstaff residents and passage seemed inevitable. But public outrage, along with the election of a new mayor and two new council members in May forced city staff to put on the brakes.

After Tuesday’s meeting, Flagstaff councilman Jeff Oravits issued the following statement on his facebook page:

“Protecting private property rights is very important to myself and so many residents of Flagstaff. As a strong private property rights advocate I have been against the City of Flagstaff adopting a Property Maintenance Ordinance (PMO) and tonight, a majority of Council agreed and the PMO will no longer be pursued. Council did propose using existing code to address the most egregious cases of unrepairable properties in order to limit blight in our community but I raised strong objections to using the code as it is currently written. I argued that we must amend the existing code which contains very broad and vague language which in my opinion gave too much authority and discretion to the building department. Council agreed and we will work on amending the existing code to ensure private property rights are protected while also addressing the most serious of issues.”

flagstaff pmo

Concerned Flagstaff Residents attend a PMO meeting at Flagstaff City Hall in March, 2012.