As a new administration preps to take the city's reins in about a month, one legal loose end was tied up recently, but a couple others still seek to be resolved.

On Sept. 20 Cochise County Superior Court Judge James Conlogue's decision brought the city of Tombstone's open meeting law violation case to a close.

"It's over. The judge has ruled," said Britt Hanson, the chief civil deputy at the Cochise County attorney's office.

Hanson said the open meeting law case was two-pronged.

It was spurred by a city council meeting in October of last year, in which Mayor Dusty Escapule ejected Six Gun City owner Mike Carrafa from the meeting during a call to the public.

After Hanson got word of the ejection from an out-of-town reporter he looked into it.

During the investigation of the ejection, Hanson stumbled upon the second alleged open meeting law violation.

"I went to the city website and I couldn't find the agenda for the meeting," he said.

He said his secretary called to check if the agenda was posted somewhere he hadn't seen.

Hanson said his secretary was told that the agendas weren't posted online.
Arizona open meeting law, however, requires public bodies to post agendas online.

Mayor Escapule said, "To try to keep our costs down we didn't hire a Webmaster."
He said once the issue was brought to the city's attention, they began posting the agendas.

Hanson said although Conlogue ruled that the city was in violation of the open meeting law for not having the agenda posted online, he opted not to make them take the open meeting law refresher course.

Regarding the incident with Carrafa, Hanson said the judge found that the conduct did violate the opening meeting law. However, since he ruled that it "was not an abuse of discretion by the mayor to silence Mr. Carrafa," the ruling has no repercussions.

"I know that that kind of sounds like a contradiction," Hanson said, but that's the way it works legally.

Carrafa and Hanson agreed that it's not typical to eject citizens from public meetings.

"I haven't seen or heard of any reported cases," Hanson said.

Carrafa said he thinks it could hinder locals from engaging in dialogue in the future.

"What would you think if you get dragged out of a meeting? It's a way to intimidate people," he said.

Escapule called Carrafa's comment a personal attack.

"It was obvious he was trying to provoke some kind of fight," Escapule said, adding, "I will tell you that's the first and only time I've ever ejected anybody out of a meeting."

Aside from his connection to the aforementioned case, Carrafa also has two other lawsuits against the city, both of which he said are still open.

The first case, which Carrafa refers to as the "First Amendment" case, is essentially a case attacking the solicitation ordinance and it could be put to bed anytime.

"This one is for them not letting me be up on Allen Street, for all the tickets and citations. It's a violation of my first amendment rights," Carrafa said.

He said he's instructed his attorney to see if he could settle with the city for just attorney fees, adding that he's certain that the solicitation ordinance situation won't be a problem when the new administration takes office in November.

"I know for a fact that if I went to court I could win damages, but I'd rather settle it now and get it over with," Carrafa said.

He said the attorney fees are somewhere around $30,000, but he was quick to point out that the money doesn't come from taxpayers.

"The thing is, the city doesn't pay that, that's very important that the citizens know," he said. "The insurance company pays. Everybody thinks it's coming out of the city, so they're like he's a bad man taking our money."

"If the city says settle, it's done. If not, then it has to wait till the next administration," Carrafa said.

When asked about the status of the case, Escapule said, "It's still going. I question what's going to happen if he gets elected as a councilman. There's a direct conflict of interest if he continues to sue the city."

When asked if he thought the city would settle out of the lawsuit by paying for Carrafa's attorney fees, Escapule said he was in no position to comment on the issue.

"I can't speak to that. That's in the hands of Southwest Risk insurance," Escapule said.

Carrafa's other case deals with an incident from April of last year, when Talvy enforced a "cease and desist" order at Six Gun City.

A court document from Aug. 6 of this year, claims that "the record is unclear as to what order the marshal thought he was there to enforce," but it had to do with a building permit hullabaloo.

In the ensuing State of Arizona vs. Michael Henry Carrafa case, Cochise County Superior Court Judge Wallace Hoggat ruled, "Nothing that Carrafa did on April 6, 2009, amounted to 'seriously disruptive behavior.'"

Carrafa said since the conviction and sentence were reversed, the case will go to federal court in March.

When asked if he'd settle for just lawyer's fees like he's opted to do in the other case, Carrafa said, "That's up to my attorney."