[Previous entry: "Who Pays The Cost Of Development?"] [Next entry: "Council Drops Law Suit Against Referendum"]

08/07/2007: "Court Sides With Gavora, But Gaylord May Obtain Restraining Order To Stop Election"

(Gaylord, Gavora and Higginson listen to Judge Churchill deny Gaylord motion)

SJC Prosecutor Randy Gaylord’s attempt to stop a vote on how the county collects money for stormwater got a setback on Friday. Superior Court Judge Vickie Churchill denied a motion by Gaylord to shorten the time for Alexandra Gavora to respond to the lawsuit brought against her by the County Council.

Stating a need to clear of “certain matters”, Gaylord informed the Judge that if necessary, he may file for a temporary Restraining Order against the SJC Auditor to stop the election. Judge Churchill denied the motion

In a split vote, with council members Gene Knapp, Bob Myhr, Alan Lichter, and Kevin Ranker for, and Rich Peterson and Howie Rosenfeld opposed, the County Council instructed Gaylord to enter a lawsuit against Gavora for the purpose of obtaining a judicial determination on the legality of the referendum on the funding of an adopted ordinance that sets a mandatory “fee” on all developed property in San Juan county

When Gavora agreed to be the one to take over 2,000 signatures (20% of the registered voters in SJC), she did not expect to be sued by the Council because of it, and she certainly did not expect an armed deputy to show up at her house at 10:00 p.m on a Wednesday night, and serve her with a summons demanding her to be Court on Friday of the same week.

Gaylord asked the Court to shorten the time for Gavora to respond due to an “issue of timeliness with regard to the upcoming election and ballot”. Gaylord explained to Judge Churchill that the issue was in “regard to the referendum getting on the ballot”. The issue at hand is the Council and Gaylord’s desire to make sure the referendum does not get on the ballot, and if it does, that it fails.

Gavora showed up at the hearing with local attorney Carla Higginson, who explained that while she does not legally represent Gavora (Gavora has not yet hired an attorney), she had been asked to explain to the Court why Gavora was opposed to the reduction of the normal 20 days to respond to Gaylord.