Mitchell: In response to Gregg Dudash’s letter about Mayor Dickey

Gregg Dudash falsely alleges that Mayor Dickey “skated on a serious ethics charge thanks to [the] unprecedented dismissal” by Town Attorney Aaron Arnson… “[T]he mayor is unethical and does not deserve to be re-elected … I don’t support unethical candidates.”

Dudash falsely impugns Attorney Arnson, claiming his clearly lawful action “avoids embarrassment for the mayor during her campaign. Nice deal if you can get it!”

Dudash demonstrates reckless disregard of the facts and malice toward Mayor Dickey and Attorney Arnson. He crosses a line set by the U.S. Supreme Court in NYTimes vs. Sullivan when it comes to defaming a public official. His false claims have added weight given his status as a member of the Sanitary District Board.

On Aug. 7 Attorney Arnson wrote, in part, to Town Manager Rachael Goodwin:

“[P]ursuant to Council Rule of Procedure 10.2, the Town Attorney’s office is responsible for the ‘initial screening’ of ethics complaints. Rule 10.2 provides that ‘The Town Attorney will determine if the alleged violation does fall under the Code of Ethics. If the Town Attorney determines that the complaint on its face may violate the Code of Ethics, it will be forwarded to outside counsel for review and the appropriate council member(s) will be notified.’”

Dudash thus recklessly erred in claiming Attorney Arnson’s review was “unprecedented.” Arnson’s review in fact was required by town ordinance and was not unprecedented.

As to the complaint itself, Attorney Arnson cites “a misunderstanding between what Mayor Dickey allegedly wrote and what she actually wrote … [What the complainant] said Mayor Dickey wrote is not what Mayor Dickey in fact wrote. [What Mayor Dickey wrote] does not, on its face, violate the Code of Ethics.”

So, Mayor Dickey did not “skate.” She was exonerated based on the facts. Nor did Attorney Arnson do her campaign a favor.

Dudash should retract.

Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at AzOpinions@iniusa.org.