http://www.foxsports.com/arizona/sto...coyotes-061015
Per the statute, Glendale must prove that Tindall was involved in creating the current arena lease agreement.
"One of the words that they will need to focus on in that statute is the word 'significantly,'" said Rodney Smith, director of the sports law and business program at ASU's Sandra Day O'Connor College of law. "They're going to have to prove that he had a significant level of involvement and I think it will be a very uphill battle for the City of Glendale."
Tindall left the city well before negotiations with Renaissance Sports & Entertainment (now IceArizona) began on the arena lease agreement in late May. However, Glendale kept Tindall on a six-month retainer and he was paid his full salary through September 2013, so the city likely will argue he served a role in creating the lease agreement.
Two sources familiar with the situation said Tindall had no role in drafting the current agreement, although it is similar to one he helped draft when Greg Jamison attempted to buy the team. One source said Tindall had a limited role as an advisor on the current agreement.
In November 2013, then-Councilman Phil Lieberman filed an ethics complaint with the State Bar of Arizona concerning Tindall. Lieberman alleged Tindall went to work for the Coyotes in 2013 while he was still paid the Glendale severance. The State Bar dismissed that claim.
"The fact that there was a complaint and the State Bar found no violations can be very persuasive. But the statute only says that there has to be conflict of interest," said Monica Lindstrom, KTAR's legal analyst. "If council can show any kind of fraud on the part of Coyotes or IceArizona or Tindall then its case strengthens."
I wonder if this law has been litigated before, to see what level of involvement is necessary.