Emails to and from Cochise County Supervisor Ann English,
showing citizens trying to get her to use her power to protect them,
and English evading and ignoring the law

, On December 18, 2014, I emailed about a particular situation -- the Cochise County attorney issuing an illegal subpoena -- to a couple of dozen people, including County Supervisor Ann English.  On December 24, English deleted this without reading it.

2, On December 24, I circulated another email to English and others, with the subject line "Illegality in the County Attorney's office exists, Ann -- you shouldn't try to ignore it."  A citizen then sent English an email including "If the people of Cochise County cannot rely on the individuals elected to the Cochise County Board of Supervisors to oversee the County operations honestly and fairly, where can they seek help in having the facts brought to light?"  English answered that citizen including "Those people who contacted you should have contacted me with their concerns" -- as if English had not already received at least two emails about these concerns, emails with factual information which she was ignoring.

3, On December 28, the same citizen emailed English that "A.R.S. 13-3018, G., states in part, 'Communication service records do not include the content of any stored oral, wire or electronic communication.'  Mr. McIntyre's request would appear to be a clear violation of Arizona Law.  Who is to hold him accountable if not the Board of Supervisors?"  On December 29 English answered, including "The Board of Supervisors has no authority over any elected county official.  We do have the power or responsibility of the budget for each elected official but not their actions.... If there was a perceived problem with McIntyre's action, the County Attorney Reinheimer was ultimately responsible as the one in charge.  I will admit I do not completely understand the violation but I will check on it.... If this was part of a criminal investigation, why was it an illegal request?  I will check on it tomorrow."  So
.  English claimed ignorance of the law
.  Her reference to a "perceived" problem was a way to avoid facing the problem
.  Her statement that she did "not completely understand the violation but [] will check on it" implied that she would investigate the matter quickly-- but she has dragged her feet.

4, On January 2, 2015, I circulated an email summarizing all of the issues, to a short list including Supervisor English.  She deleted it without reading it.

5, On January 6, a citizen emailed English about ARS 11-251, and said that attorney McIntyre "seems to either not know the law or to have misrepresented it to obtain more than he should have via the subpoena."  She answered that "People assume that the Board has some power over the elected [officers]' actions but we have the budget power only.  I believe the same would apply to someone who is appointed to an elected position.  I intend to ask advice from the civil division of the County Attorney, who represent the Board in legal matters.  Another individual asked some of the same questions but asked me to go no further so I have not asked what responsibility I have.  If I have been wrong in my assumptions, I am wanting to find the facts."  So
.  English was still not addressing any of the statutes that citizens had cited to her
.  She intended to ask legal advice from the same attorney who was illegally stonewalling a citizen's public records request about the matter
.  She said someone asked her not to investigate, but she didn't mention that others were asking her to go further -- a classic lie by omission
.  She said she was still making assumptions but wanted to know the facts -- although she had been deleting emails containing the facts

6, On January 7, English emailed the same citizen that "When I asked the question of my responsibility in actions of any elected official's office, I was referred to the ARS 11-251.  If you would go to the Arizona Statutes, 11-251, you will find the Powers of the Board.  When you have read it you will see that the Board has the power and responsibility of the budget of elected officers. We do not have the power or responsibility of their actions as they perform their duties."  English was clearly wrong according to 11-251, and glaringly wrong according to 11-253, which her advisor had apparently not told her about.

7, On January 7, English deleted another email of mine with more information about the problem, without reading it.

8, On January 12, I sent an email, to recipients including English, which repeated a comment I made to a newspaper story:  "On October 13, 2014, McIntyre signed a subpoena to Google for the content of emails to and from David Morgan, a Cochise County journalist.  The subpoena said it was made pursuant to ARS 13-3018 -- a statute which says a subpoena can NOT demand the content of emails.  McIntyre hasn't answered emailed questions about this contradiction.  A county supervisor says she's looked into the matter and that she can't do anything, but she hasn't denied that 13-3018 was violated.  Will McIntyre explain now, at the beginning of his term, why he signed an illegal subpoena, or will he spend the next two years trying to avoid answering the question?"  English didn't read that email for a few days.

9, On January 14, the same citizen who wrote to English on January 7 emailed her "What have you been able to find out about that subpoena?"  Two hours later, she answered "Nothing more.  Same answer as before."  English didn't do her job, no matter how much time citizens gave her.  The last I heard, English hadn't answered.

10, On January 15, I emailed to recipients, including English, about ARS 11-253 giving a Board "sharp teeth" in supervising.  On the same day, at least one other citizen also wrote her on the same subject.  The next day, January 16, English finally opened my email from January 12, though I don't know if she read it or not.  I don't know if she's answered any other citizen emails.

11, On January 26, I emailed English the simplest education I could.   Its subject line was "Here, Ann, just for you:  state law lets you supervise and even fire elected county officers."  Here's its entire text:
.  "The Board can haul any elected county officer in, put him under oath, question him about anything related to his job, make him put up a bond, and fire him if he won't.
.  "That's ARS 11-253, which gives a Board sharp teeth when it supervises other County officers.
.  "Here's a link to 11-253(A):
.  "It says:  'The board may require any county officer to make reports under oath on any matter connected with the duties of his office, and may require the officer to give such bonds or further bonds as may be necessary for the faithful performance of his respective duties.  An officer who neglects or refuses to make the report, or to give the bond within ten days after being so required, may be removed from office by the board and the office declared vacant.  The board may then fill the vacancy.'"