Sullivan states case for recall in Supreme Court response

A recall effort targeting Mayor Jim West does not rely on unsubstantiated news accounts or ambiguous comments by the mayor to a potential intern, the recall sponsor argued Friday in papers filed with the state Supreme Court.

Nor is it about West’s sexual orientation, Shannon Sullivan and her attorney Jerry Davis wrote in a legal brief that replies to arguments the mayor’s attorneys filed last week.

“Appellant (West) hopes that by inferring that this is all about sexual orientation and not the mayor’s conduct, that somehow this will help him stay in office,” Sullivan and Davis wrote, calling that an attempt “to take the focus off the real issues.”

The trial court that rewrote the proposed ballot synopsis did not overstep its authority and the recall effort should move forward as “legally and factually sufficient,” Sullivan also argues in her brief.

Attorneys for West said they plan to study Sullivan’s brief, which they didn’t receive until about 4 p.m. Friday, over the weekend, and may comment on it later. They must file a response with the Supreme Court by Aug. 15, with a hearing scheduled for Aug. 24.

Recall petitions will be circulated for signatures only if the Supreme Court rejects West’s appeal.

At issue is a decision by visiting Superior Court Judge Craig Matheson to allow one of the three allegations Sullivan filed against West to become the basis for a possible recall effort. The ballot synopsis Matheson crafted after a June 13 hearing lists details about e-mail contact between West and a person he believed was an 18-year-old high school student met on a gay chat line.

That person was actually a forensic computer expert hired by The Spokesman-Review to help confirm a young man’s account of meeting West on a gay chat line, then later meeting him in person and eventually having consensual sex with him. The computer expert, who used the e-mail identity Moto-Brock, had a series of conversations with someone using the identity JMSelton, but who was in fact West.

The newspaper is not revealing the name of the expert, a fact that West’s attorneys have argued undercuts the credibility of Sullivan’s information.

The court record includes a copy of correspondence from West’s official city e-mail, encouraging him to apply for an internship by contacting the appropriate City Hall official. The mayor’s attorneys argue that what West did on his own time and his own computers is personal and not relevant, and there’s nothing wrong with a mayor encouraging someone to apply for an internship with his official e-mail.

It doesn’t make sense to disregard the Internet conversations leading up to West’s official e-mail, Sullivan and Davis counter.

“The only way the mayor knew of this young man was from his online chats under his alias,” they wrote. “The only way the mayor knew this young man would respond so positively towards an internship offer was because of his personal online relationship with this young man.”

Sullivan and Davis also counter the mayors’ attorneys’ claims that Sullivan doesn’t have the level of knowledge about the allegation required by state law because her information comes from a newspaper article with an unnamed source. But to support the recall petition, Sullivan also provided an affidavit from Councilwoman Cherie Rodgers about a conversation she had with the mayor. West also admitted his relationship with Moto-Brock in an interview with the newspaper, they added.

Another argument made by West’s attorneys in their appeal was the way Matheson rewrote the ballot synopsis, adding significant amounts of detail. That goes beyond a judge’s authority under the recall statutes, they contend.

Sullivan and Davis reply that the law directs the trial judge to correct any deficiencies, and doesn’t require the final result to match the original petition.

“In fact, that goes against common sense and the obvious intent of the Legislature,” they wrote.

As for the argument made by West’s attorneys that they didn’t get a chance to challenge the ballot synopsis Matheson wrote, Sullivan and Davis said they didn’t, either. But state law says the judge’s decision is final and neither party gets that opportunity.

“If (West) is not pleased with this statute, his remedy is with the Legislature to attempt to have it modified, not with the judicial branch,” Sullivan and Davis suggest. The mayor served some 20 years in the state House and Senate.